BACHCHI DEVI Vs. 3RD ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE BALRAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed praying for setting aside the order dtd. 25/10/2019 and the order dtd. 2/7/2019 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Civil Appeal no.02 of 2014 and the order dtd. 28/1/2014 passed by learned Trial Court in Regular Suit No.478 of 2011.

(2.) Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

(3.) The case set up by the petitioner before this Court is that as per the pedigree given in paragraph-3 of the petition, one Jagannath was the owner of two houses situated adjacent to each other. He had two sons, namely, Chhailbihari and Lalta Prasad, both are now dead. Chhailbihari had one son Ram Pratap, who has been arrayed as respondent no.3 and Dwarka Prasad also had one son who was differently abled and died a long time ago and the petitioner is the widow of Dwarka Prasad. There are two houses situated adjacent to each other. The house of the petitioner is existing in a single storey in a dilapidated condition, whereas the house of the respondent no.3 situated next to it is double storey and has a shop also in it. Whereas the house of the respondent no.3 has all basic amenities like electricity connection and water pipeline, the house of the petitioner is in a pitiable condition with no electricity connection or water pipeline. She being a widow, is somehow surviving in the said house. The respondent no.3 taking the benefit of her old age and being a stamp vendor in the Civil Court and aware of court procedure, tried to grab her house by instituting a Regular Suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner on false allegation that he is the exclusive owner in the possession of the house in dispute i.e. the house which is adjacent to his own house and in dilapidated condition in which the petitioner lives, alleging that the father of the plaintiff Chhailbihari and the husband of the defendant Dwarka Prasad were real brothers and the ancestral house which was situated near Cooperative Seed Godown in front of Hatan road had been left by the father of the plaintiff in favour of his brother i.e. the husband of the defendant has he too was differently able and feeble minded.