GANESH KUMARI DEVI Vs. SAROJNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present two revision applications are directed against the order of the trial Court by which the trial Court has refused to recall the order substituting the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in place of plaintiff Hari Singh and further refused to substitute the intervenor-defendant, petitioner before this Court, who happens to be the lawfully wedded wife of late Hari Singh. Facts for the relevant purpose have fortunately been settled by this Court on earlier occasion. The deceased-plaintiff (Hari Singh) had earlier initiated a divorce proceeding against his wife Smt. Ganesh Kumari Devi, the present petitioner. The petitioner was rejected by the District Judge, Patna and the said order was not interfered by this Court in FA No. 108 of 1983, which was dismissed on 16th May, 1985. In the said First Appeal, apart from the fact that relationship of husband and wife stood admitted, it was found that one Sarojni Devi (Opposite Party No. 1 in these revision applications) was nothing but a concubine of Hari Singh and the proceedings were terminated. The present petitioner came to know that her husband had tried to manipulate the records of Kankarbagh People's Co-operative Housing Construction Society in order to deprive her of Legitimate right, title and interest in the land in question, which stood in her name and on which the disputed premises stands. She accordingly filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 115 of 1981, which was ultimately decreed on 22-12-1992 holding that the petitioner and her husband both had right in the said property. Both the parties preferred appeals before the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and allowed the appeal of the wife (petitioner) by judgment and order dated 4-10-1997. The effect of the said judgment was that the wife (petitioner) was declared to be the sole owner of the property in question. The husband being dissatisfied preferred two second appeals before this Court, first being aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal and second being aggrieved by allowing the appeal of the wife. Both the appeals were taken up together and dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 17-9-1999 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 297 and 319 of 1997 clearly noticing and affirming that the petitioner (wife) Smt. Ganesh Kumari Devi was the real owner of the suit property and not name-lender of any sort. It was also noticed that her husband had been convicted on a complaint by the wife under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code for manipulating the records of Kankarbagh People's Co-operative Housing Construction Society. Apparently as no Sentence was awarded in spite of conviction no appeal was preferred and the conviction attained finality.

(2.) In view of the above two sets of decisions by this Court, the following facts are established : (i) Ganesh Kumari Devi is the lawfully wedded wife of Hari Singh. (ii) Genesh Kumari Devi was the owner of the property is question being her personal property. (iii) Smt. Sarojni Devi was concubine of Hari Singh.

(3.) It appears that two suits for eviction were filed by the said Hari Singh in respect of this property in the year 1995 claiming himself to be the "landlord" for eviction of his tenants. As noticed above in 1995 as per judgment in T.S. No. 115 of 1981 dated 22-12-1992 it had been held that Hari Singh and Ganesh Kumari Devi both had legitimate right, therefore, the suit appears to have been instituted by Hari Singh as the expression landlord under the provision of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act has an extensive meaning which includes representative of the landlord. In the said proceeding, as pointed out by Sri Parmeshwar Prasad learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Smt. Sarojni Devi, the present opposite party No. 1 filed a petition to be added as intervenor-defendant on the ground that she was true owner. She admitted that Hari Singh had initiated a proceeding in the legitimate capacity as her representative having authority to collect rent. She did not and could not admit Hari Singh to be personally interested in property, in question, in any manner. This was allowed. She was added as intervenor -defendant in the two eviction suits. When Hari Singh died and the Court not having been posted with the two judgments of this Court aforesaid Sarojni Devi (concubine of Hari Singh) and her two minor sons were permitted to be substituted as heirs of Hari Singh. On coming to know of this wrong and illegal substitution the present petitioner filed an application for recall of that order and consequently substituting her as the plaintiff being the landlord. This has been erroneously rejected by the trial Court in both the cases.