RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANJAY Misra, J. Heard Sri M. K. Nigam learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H. N. Singh learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 4th December, 1991 passed by the District Judge Allahabad in Revision No. 145 of 1991. BY the aforesaid judgment, the revisional Court in exercise of its power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act has proceeded to allow the revision of the respondent No. 3 and set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and also dismissed the suit of the petitioners with costs.

(3.) FROM the record it appears that a Suit No. 95 of 1986 was filed by Smt. Radha Devi wife of Bachchan for partition and separate possession of various properties which the parties alleged to have inherited after the death of Smt. Chameli Devi. A compromise was entered into between the parties and the suit was finally decided in terms of the compromise on 5-4-1989. The compromise decree has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said compromise decree indicates that the property in question belonged to the sons of Radha Devi as also the sons of Bhola Nath. It is not disputed between the parties before this Court that the compromise decree was passed in Suit No. 95 of 1986 on 5-4-1989. The trial Court while entering into the question of ownership of the property took into consideration the aforesaid decree and recorded its finding upon being prima facie satisfied that the property in question being House No. 471 Mutthiganj (New No. 1008 Mutthiganj) Allahabad was in the co-ownership of the petitioners as also the sons of Smt. Radha Devi. Upon recording the aforesaid finding, the trial Court had decreed the suit with respect to the arrears of rent and on the ground of subletting. The trial Court has not adjudicated the title of the parties itself.