Decided on April 18,2013

Ram Puri Appellant
USHA SHARMA Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal preferred under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 92 of 1978 whereby said court has dismissed the suit for cancellation of lease deed dated 17.10.1978 with costs.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the entire lower court record. Brief facts, of the case, are that late Mahant Raghuwansh Puri inherited the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' situated in Haridwar, detailed at the end of plaint through his ancestors namely Mahant Ghanshyam Puri and Mahant Ganesh Puri and others. The property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint is known as GADDI of late Mahant Raghuwansh Puri who was a Grahasth Gosain. Plaintiff Ram Puri (since died) son/CHELA and defendant No. 2 Kaura Devi (since died) were also Grahasth Gosains. Shri Raghuwansh Puri died way back on 24.12.1932 survived by his widow defendant No. 2 Kaura Devi. She (defendant No.2) according to the custom in Gosain community became MAHANTANI7 owner of GADDI as legal heir of late Mahant Raghuwansh Puri. Since Raghuwansh Puri had one daughter Indra Devi through his first wife, after his death a litigation started between her (Indra Devi) and Kaura Devi which finally terminated in terms of compromise decree dated 26.05.1950 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the rights of defendant No. 2 Kaura Devi over the GADDI left by Raghuwansh Puri were conceded. Plaintiff Ram Puri whose natural father was Chandan Singh has pleaded that he used to live with defendant No. 2 who adopted him as her son after accepting him in Gosain Community. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 27.06.1955 Kaura Devi (defendant No. 2) executed a registered adoption deed/CHELA deed whereby plaintiff Ram Puri became adopted son of Mahant Raghuwansh Puri. At the time of institution of plaint in the present round of litigation initiated by plaintiff Ram Puri, defendant No. 2 Kaura Devi was aged 80 years. It is pleaded in the plaint that due to her mental weakness some greedy persons created gulf between the plaintiff and defendat No. 2 who thereafter executed permanent lease of property detailed in Schedule 'B' of the plaint on 17.10.1978. Alleging that said lease deed was void on various grounds including that neither there was necessity for transfer of the property, nor the amount received was the proper consideration the deed dated 17.10.1978 is questioned by the plaintiff. It is also pleaded in the plaint that defendant No. 2 had no right to alienate the same. It was also pleaded by amending the plaint that even otherwise defendant No. 2 could not have alienated the property for a period before beyond her life time. It is further stated in the plaint that after defendant No. 2 refused to cancel the lease deed cause of action arose to the plaintiff who instituted further suit. In the year 1998 by way of amendment it is added in the plaint that after the death of defendant No. 2, during the pendency of suit defendant Nos. 3 to 9 started claiming themselves trustees of the property on the basis of Will dated 11.09.1980 which according to plaintiff is null and void.
(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 Usha Sharma (in whose favour disputed lease deed was executed by defendant No.2) admitted that Mahant Raghuwansh Puri was a Grahasth Gosain and owned the property mentioned in the plaint. It was also admitted by her that he (Mahant Raghuwansh Puri) died on 24.12.1932. It is pleaded in the written statement of defendant No.1 that at the time of the death of Mahant Raghuwansh Puri not only Kaura Devi (defendant No.2) was survived by him as his widow but also by Indra Devi who was daughter of Raghuwansh Puri. This is also admitted by this defendant (No.1) that long drawn litigation went between Indra Devi and defendant No. 2 Kaura Devi (step mother) which finally terminated in terms of compromise between the parties vide order dated 26.05.1950 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rest of the allegations in the plaint are denied by this respondent. In the additional pleas it is stated that plaintiff is not the successor of the GADDI of Mahant Raghuwansh Puri. It is also pleaded that since Raghuwansh Puri was a Grahasth Gosain as such neither he was an ascetic nor a Mahant. It is further stated in the written statement of defendant No. 1 that Kaura Devi inherited the property left by Mahant Raghuwansh Puri on the basis of order passed by the Supreme Court on 2.05.1950 in terms of compromise between the parties to litigation of said case. Plea of adoption taken by the plaintiff is also denied by this defendant. The deed dated 27.06.1955 in favour of the plaintiff allegedly executed by Kaura Devi (defendant No. 2) is also denied. It is specifically pleaded that a married woman cannot make anyone as her CHELA. It is also denied by defendant No. 1 that due to weak mental condition of defendant No. 2 anyone wants to grab the property in question. As to the lease deed dated 17.10.1978 it is pleaded by the defendant No. 1 that the same is valid document executed by defendant No. 2. It is further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 2 had every right to execute said deed. In para 24 of the written statement defendant No. 1 states that defendant No. 2 did bring up plaintiff Ram Puri as son of her employee who has filed a suit and deprived defendant No.2 of her rights.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.