MAHENDRA NATH Vs. BAIKUNTHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second Appeal and the revision application arising out of two different suits came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The two cases involved the interpretation of Section 30 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the main point. The single Judge finding a conflict of judicial opinion in the two Division Bench decisions, namely, Shri Ram v. Dhani Ram Gupta, 1974 All WR (HC) 213 - (AIR 1974 All 358) and Shanti Prasad v. Akhtar, 1972 RD 275 (All) referred the two cases to a larger Bench. This is how these cases have come up before us.

(2.) THOUGH the pattern of facts in the two cases is similar yet the details differ. It will, therefore, be convenient to give the material facts of the two cases to bring out the point involved therein.

(3.) IT appears that Jeewa Ram died in the meantime leaving behind him his heirs and legal representatives. Mahendra Nath sought to enforce the agreement dated 16th June, 1960, by means of a suit against the heirs and legal representatives of Jeewa Ram. The claim was resisted by defendants Nos. 1 to 5 on the grounds, inter alia, that Jeewa Ram never executed any deed of agreement nor did he receive any advance, that Jeewa Ram had also executed a will in their favour and thus they were the rightful owners of the properties, that defendant No. 6 was not the heir of Jeewa Ram and she had no concern with the disputed property. She had about lost her claim before the consolidation authorities.