Kailash Prasad, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected appeals from the judgment and order dated 18th of February, 1959 of Mr. Justice Vishnu Datta.
(2.) THE appeals arise from two suits filed by Smt. Suraj Mukhi, the mother of the present Respondents, against two sets of Defendants who are the Appellants in these two connected appeals before us. Smt. Suraj Mukhi died during the pendency of the present litigation and the present Respondents were brought on record as her legal representatives. The facts briefly are that one Jadunandan was the last male owner of the property in dispute. On 20th July, 1914 he executed a will in favour of Smt. Ram Sawari who was the wife of his nephew. Smt. Ram Sawari executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter (Smt. Suraj Mukhi) and daughter's sons (the present Respondents). Later on Smt. Ram Sawari filed a suit for the cancellation of the gift deed but a compromise was arrived at in that case whereunder it was agreed that the gift would not take effect until after the death of Smt. Ram Sawari. Thereafter the present Appellants filed suits against Smt. Ram Sawari under Section 59 of the UP. Tenancy Act claiming that they were the tenants of certain plots which are in dispute here. Smt. Rail Sawari admitted them to be tenants and a decree was prepared in terms of the admission, treating the present Appellants as tenants. Smt. Ram Sawari died on 9th March, 1946. Thereafter Smt. Suraj Mukhi filed the two present suits in the civil court against the two sets of Defendants for a declaration that the consent decrees passed in suits Nos. 116 of 1944 and 500 of 1944 under Section 59 of the UP Tenancy Act were obtained by fraud and were not binding on her. It was also prayed that a decree for possession over the plots be passed.
(3.) THE defence inter alia was that the Defendants were tenants of the plots in dispute, that the decrees in question were not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and were binding on the parties and that the suits were not cognizable by the civil court.;