BALDEO PANDEY Vs. RAM PRASAD RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil revision applications have been filed by one Baldeo Pandey, who was a defendant in Title Suit No. 219 of 1948 instituted by Marachho Kuer, an opposite Party in these two cases. The Civil revisions arise out of two applications filed by two sets of persons under 0. 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order has been passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 12 of 1963 to the effect that these two applications will be heard together. Hence this judgment will govern both the cases.

(2.) The facts are as follows. In 1948, Marachho Kuer had instituted Title Suit No. 219 of 1948 against Baldeo Pandey, disputing an alleged adoption of Baldeo Pandey by one Gopal Tiwary, husband of Marachho Kuer. According to Marachho Kuer, she was the legal heir of Gopal Tiwary and Baldeo Pandey was not his adopted son. The suit was decreed in 1955 and Title Appeal No. 91 of 1955 had been preferred by Baldeo Pandey, In the meantime, by two sale deeds dated the 7th October 1948 and the 26th October 1948, Marachho Kuer had transferred certain properties to the two sets of the applicants under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that during the pendency of Title Appeal No. 91 of 1955, the dispute between the parties to the appeal were referred to arbitration. An award was filed by the arbitrator and a decree was passed in terms of the award. The decree was executed by Balded Pandey and he obtained delivery of possession of certain-properties mentioned in Schedule B of the award, which, according to the award, Baldeo Pandey was entitled to. Then the two sets of purchasers under the two sale deeds mentioned above, filed their applications under Order 21, Rule 100, alleging that they had been wrongfully dispossessed of the properties purchased by them from Marachho Kuer. The application filed by the purchasers of the 7th of October was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 165 of 1961 and the application filed by the purchasers of the 26th of October was registered as Mr. cellaneous Case No. 166 of 1961. The order under revision has disposed of both the miscellaneous cases, which have been allowed. Thus Baldeo Pandey has come up to this Court in these two civil revision applications.

(3.) The two points which have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the judgment of the learned Munsif, where he has stated that Baldeo Pandey's objections were that the miscellaneous cases were hit by the principles of Ms pendens and that the applicants under Order 21, Rule 100 were estopped from challenging the award decree as they were parties to the award. After stating the case of the respective parties, the learned Munsif framed two points for determination, which are;