- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. The second appeal has been filed under sec tion 100 C. P. C. against the judgment and order dated 25. 4. 1977 passed by the District Judge, Nainital in Civil Ap peal No. 1/1977 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23. 12. 1976 passed by the learned Munsif, Kashipur in Suit No. 255/1974.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred as 're spondents') filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants (hereinafter referred as 'appellants') from the disputed house with the allegations that the appellants were temporary given the disputed house on licence three years before the filing of the suit. The appellant No. 2-Smt. Phoolwati w/o Dhan Singh is the sister of the Plaintiffs. It was further al leged that the appellants had been liv ing in the disputed house since they were allowed to live. The appellants were earlier living at Dron Sagar from where they were evicted. Thereafter, the appellants requested the Plaintiffs to permit them to live in the disputed house till the other arrangement is made. When the appellants did not vacate the house in question inspite of repeated requests of the respondents, the respondents-Plaintiffs served a no tice to the defendants to vacate the said premises within a period of fifteen days. Inspite of the service of notice, the ap pellants did not vacate the said house. Hence, the suit was filed for ejectment of the appellants. The suit was contested by the appellants (defendants) and they pleaded that the real sister of the Plaintiffs Smt. Ram Dei (appellant No. 3), who was impleaded in the suit after filing of the written statement, was the owner of the disputed house and she gave it to her younger sister-appellant No. 2 (Smt. Phoolwati) for life time. It was further alleged that the suit was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. It was further alleged that a panchayat was convened to settle the dispute and the panchayat had held that the prop erty should remain with the appellants. After the appraisal of the plead ings, the learned Munsif framed the necessary issues in the suit and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs-re spondents are the owners of the disputed property and the appellant No. 1 and 2 were held to be the licencees in the aid house. It was further held that the licence was revoked by the respondents by means of a notice and the conten tion of the appellants that the suit was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence was rejected.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, an appeal was pre ferred before the District Judge. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and the maintained the decree passed by the trial court vide order dated 25. 4. 1977. Feeling aggrieved by both orders of the courts below, the second appeal was preferred before the Allahabad High Court from where it has been re ceived by transfer under the U. P. Reor ganization Act,. 2000, for its disposal.;