ASHOK VIDYARTHI Vs. SRILEKHA VIDYARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person as well as learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the same was dismissed on 26th August, 2004 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner -respondents are to springs of two wives of Late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi. Mrs. Rama Vidyarthi, who was subsequently substituted by respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, filed suit No. 37 of 1969 under Section 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the allegation that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, namely Mrs. Rama Vidyarthi and Mrs. Savitri Vidyarthi, both are the wives of Late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi, who died on 14th March, 1955. The defendant No. 2, petitioner in the present writ petition, is the son of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 2. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is the sole owner in possession of house No. 7/89, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, having purchased it by registered sale deed, dated 27th September, 1961 and having been in continuous undisturbed possession thereof till 26th July, 1968. In the year 1961, when the bungalow No. 7/89, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur was purchased by the plaintiff, then at the request of the defendants No. 1 and 2, the plaintiff allowed the said defendants, petitioner and respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition, to continue to live in the said house as licensees at the will of the plaintiff, who is now represented by respondents 1 and 2 in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE aforesaid suit No. 37 of 1969 filed under Section 6(1) of the Specific Relief Act was decreed ex -parte on 14th February, 1976. On 23rd February, 1976, the decree holder filed execution case No. 4 of 1976 for the execution of the decree passed in suit No. 37 of 1969. An objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on the ground that the decretal two rooms are not identifiable. The executing Court vide its order dated 27th May, 1988 rejected the objection filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present writ petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision No. 150 of 1988. During the pendency of revision No. 150 of 1988, on 9th January, 1989, the decree -holder and the judgment debtors agreed on -the following terms: