MONOHARLAL Vs. SRI PREM SHANKAR TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for taking proceedings for contempt of court. The application purported to be under Sections 2 and 3 of Act XII of 1926 which actually has been repealed and replaced by Act XXXII of 1952.

(2.) The facts of the case are that there was one Munshi Ram Sewak who died on 3-5-1910, He was succeeded by his widow Srimati Sukhraj Kuer who was recorded in the khewat as his successor. She adopted Satgur Prasad, opposite party No. 5, as a son to her husband and on 5th November, 1919, executed a deed of adoption in his favour. After the execution of this deed Satgur Prasad was recorded in the khewat in the year 1920. Manohar Lal (applicant No. 1), Manna Lal, Bachchu Lal, Ganga Prasad and Raj Narain who were the next reversioners of Munshi Ram Sewak considered the adoption of Satgur Prasad as illegal and prejudicial to their interests and, therefore, they brought a suit No. 103 of 1925 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, inter alia, against Srimati Sukhraj Kuer and Satgur Prasad. The suit was decided by a compromise dated the 6th May, 1926, which provided that Satgur Prasad was to remain in proprietary possession of eight annas share in village Hirhin ana he gave up all his rights with respect to the remaining eight annas share in favour of Manohar Lal and others but it was provided that that share would be delivered to the plaintiffs by Satgur Prasad after the death of Srimati Sukhraj Kuer without the necessity of any suit. During the lifetime of Srimati Sukhraj Kuer the plaintiffs were to get Rs. 600/- per annum out of the profits of the village concerned and there was a charge created for this amount. This arrangement continued till the time the zamindari was abolished, when Srimati Sukhraj Kuer was alive.

(3.) A draft compensation assessment roll was prepared in the name of Satgur Prasad alone as it was his name alone which was entered in the revenue papers. A notification under Section 47 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was issued on 28-3-1953 and was published in the U. P. Gazette calling for objections within two months. On the 15th April, 1953 objections were filed by Kunwar Bahadur, Shamsher Bahadur and Jang Bahadur, sons of Raj Narain who was one of the plaintiffs in the suit of 1925. On the 16th of May, 1953, Manna Lal, Manohar Lal, Kaushal Kishore and Kali Prakash, sons of Bachchu Lal, and Luxmi Narain, son of Ganga Prasad filed objection. Satgur-Prasad had applied for an interim compensation and, therefore, on the 8th June, 1953, Luxmi Narain moved another application to the effect that in spite of the objections Satgur Prasad had applied for payment of interim compensation and in view of the objections the same should be withheld. On the 5th June, 1953 a sum of Rs. 967/8/- had already been paid to Satgur Prasad. On the 2nd July, 1953 Luxmi Narain moved another application that that payment had wrongly been made and it was said that opposite party No. 3, Jagannath Prasad, who was Satgur Prasad's wife's brother, appeared to be prejudicing the inte- rest of the objector and a prayer was made that Satgur Prasad had applied for payment of interim compensation paid to him for Kharif 1360 Fasli, or in the alternative, he should be asked to furnish security as required under Section 29(2) of the Zamin-dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Compensation Officer directed the Compensation Naib Tahsildar to submit a report by the 15th July, 1953. On the 30th September, 1953, it is said that Satgur Prasad entered into a compromise with the objectors and admitted their claim to the extent of half compensation of village Hirhin and it appears that no action was taken on Luxmi Narain's application. Therefore on 9-4-1954 Jang Bahadur applied to Compensation Officer reiterating that Jagannath Prasad had deliberately suppressed his objections filed on 15-4-1953 and 16-5-1953.