RAJENDRA SINGH RAGHAV Vs. RAJA KHAGENDRA PRATAP SHAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani , J. Hard Shri G. M Verma , Swnior Sdvocte assisred by Shri S. N. Shukala for the defendant - appellants, and Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary , Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R. S Maurya for the plaintiff- respopndenrs.

(2.) THIS second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 2. 6. 1975 by the Fourth Addl. District Judge, Deoria, which was allowed by this Court and the suit was dismissed on 7. 1. 1987. Raja Khagendra Pratap Shahi, the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 1994 in the Supreme Court of India. By the judgment dated 31. 10. 2002 the Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and sent the matter back to this Court, with the following observations : "having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have heard the appeal only after complying with the provisions of Section 100 of the C. P. C. Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 100 of the CPC has resulted in vitiating the judgment. For the short reason the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court in Second Appeal is set aside. The appeal is sent back for rehearing and decision afresh by the High Court. The appellant in the High Court shall suggest the substantial questions of law which in his submissions are involved in the appeal. The High Court may, on being so satisfied, frame the questions, and thereafter, proceed to hear and decide the appeal on merits keeping in view the provisions of Section 100 of CPC. The parties through their respective Counsel are directed to appear the High Court on 16. 12. 2002. Vide order dated 28. 10. 1994, this Court passed an interim direction restraining the respondents herein from raising any construction on or transferring or alienating the property in dispute. THIS order shall continue to remain in operation till the date of first hearing the High Court where-after the High Court may form its own opinion on the need and propriety of issuing any interim direction during the pendency of the appeal it. "

(3.) THE defendants pleaded that the Tamkuhi Estate remained under the charge of the Court of Wards for sometime and that they acquired a piece of land on which they raised constructions from the Court of Wards. THEy denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the piece of land.