LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-190

MAHENDRA KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. GYAN CHANDRA PORWAR

Decided On September 17, 2015
Mahendra Kumar And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Gyan Chandra Porwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 30.5.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority, Mahoba in Execution Case No.15 of 2014, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners in proceedings under Section 23 of U.P. Act.13 of 19721 as well as the order dated 1.9.2015 passed by District Judge, Mahoba dismissing Civil Revision No.18 of 2015, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) A release application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for release of a shop in possession of the petitioners situated in Mohalla Grantganj Bazar, Mahoba. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 6.5.2014 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was affirmed by the appellate court with the dismissal of the appeal by order dated 26.7.2014. The matter was brought before this Court by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed by order and judgment dated 21.8.2014.

(3.) The respondent applied under Section 23 of the Act for execution of the release order, which was registered as Execution Case No.15 of 2014. The petitioners filed objections, inter alia, on the ground that the demised premises belonged to Late Babu Lal and he left behind a Will dated 18.8.1993, according to which, the demised premises would devolve on the respondent land lord subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- by him to Smt. Hira Devi (daughter of Babu Lal and elder sister of the respondent). The Will specifically stipulates that in case of failure on part of the respondent to pay Rs. 50,000/- to his elder sister Smt. Hira Devi, the property would devolve on the son-in-law of the testator namely Devi Prasad Gupta. It was alleged that the respondent had not paid Rs. 50,000/- to Smt. Hira Devi and as such, the property had not devolved on the respondent, but to Devi Prasad Gupta, consequently, the respondent has no right to get the release order executed.