- (1.) Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Sinha along with Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, for the petitioners and Smt. Rajni Ojha along with Sri Ravindra Nath Chaubey, for the respondents.
(2.) This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of Civil Judge (S.D.) dated 15.02.2016, rejecting, application for interim injunction of the petitioners in O.S. No. 266 of 2015 and District Judge dated 01.03.2016, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners filed from it and for allowing application for interim injunction.
(3.) The petitioners filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 266 of 2008) for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents first set, from ejecting the petitioners from premises built on plots 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B (area 11.5 dhur), situated in Block-1, Chowk, Ballia city and for declaring, order of District Judge Ballia dated 26.09.2015, allowing rent appeal No. 2 of 2015 and directing for release of the premises in tenancy of the petitioners under Section 21 (1) a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as void. The petitioners took plea that Ganesh Prasad Jauhari, their grand father, was original resident of village Gothuli, district Ballia. He used to do business of selling herbal medicines and cents. In that connection, he met with Smt. Dhanpalo Kueri wife of Bisheshwar Prasad Mishra, who was zamindar. Sarju Prasad Mishra, son of Smt. Dhanpalo Kueri was a loafer and a man of bad habits. He used to misbehave with his mother and wife and also wasting property. In order to save joint family property a partition suit (registered as O.S. No. 73 of 1928, Gopal Ji Mishra Vs. Saraju Prasad Mishra and others) was filed, in which partition decree was passed, in which the building, constructed by Bisheshwar Prasad Mishra on plots 57, 58, 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B, situated in Block-1, Chowk, Ballia city, fell in share of Smt. Dhanpalo Kueri, Dulhan Ram Sakhi Kueri and Gopal Ji Mishra (minor). Ganesh Prasad Jauhari began to work as karinda of Dhanpalo Kueri, Dulhan Ram Sakhi Kueri. In that connection, they permitted Ganesh Prasad Jauhari to reside in upper storey of premises on plots 57, 58, 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B. Later on, Dulhan Ram Sakhi Kueri and Gopal Ji Mishra (minor) through his guardian Rajendra Prasad Sinha, executed a sale deed dated 27.11.1933 (registered on 30.11.1933) in respect of their share and Smt. Dhanpalo Kueri executed a sale deed dated 13.12.1933 (registered on 14.12.1934) in respect of her share, in premises on plots 57 and 58, in favour of Ram Bahadur Ram and Radha Kishun Ram. Premises on plots 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B was never sold by original owners and was inherited by Gopal Ji Mishra and after his death, by his sons Dhaneshwar Mishra and Ganesh Mishra, who executed a sale deed dated 18.11.2015 of premises constructed on plots 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B, in favour of the plaintiffs. Heirs of Radha Kishun Ram and Ram Bahadur Ram filed a collusive suit for declaration (registered as O.S. No. 85 of 1960), in which they illegally included premised constructed on plots 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B. They entered into compromise and suit was decreed on 20.04.1960, without any notice to Gopal Ji Mishra and his sons. Later on Heirs of Radha Kishun Ram filed a suit for partition (registered as O.S. No. 203 of 2001), of the building constructed on plots 57, 58, 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B, which was also decreed in terms of compromise on 07.09.2002. Earlier, Ram Bahadur and heirs of Radha Kishun Ram filed a Misc. Case No. 32 of 1993, which was converted as PA Case No. 2 of 1994 for ejectment of Shyam Das, father of the petitioners, which was dismissed on 05.08.1997. Thereafter, heirs of Radha Kishun Ram filed PA Case No. 53 of 2006, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, against the petitioners, for release of premises constructed on plots 57, 58, 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B which was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2015. Then they filed Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2015, which was allowed by District Judge, by order dated 26.09.2015, without considering the fact that they were not owner and landlord of premises on plots 59-A/1, 59-A and 59-B. On these allegations, suit was filed. The petitioners also filed an application for interim injunction.;