POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri O.P. Mishra and Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Counsels for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A.K. Singh and Sri V.K. Rai Advocates for the defendant-respondents.
(2.) BOTH the appeals are connected appeals since it relates to one and the same property. The dispute relates to Plot No. 16 which is a new number of old plot No. 9 which the plaintiffs claim to be in possession since a very long time. The facts giving rise to the dispute are that the State Government gave the land in question Which was Nazul land, on lease to one Bachchu Lonia on 12.9.1873. After the death of Bachchu Lonia, the property devolved on his son Ram Bharose. Raja Raghubir Singh., Maharaja of Maihar purchased the aforesaid lease hold property from Ram Bharose by means of sale-deed on 12.8.1896. Maharaja Brijnath Singh was the son of Raja Raghubir Singh who was the ruler of Maihar State. Maharaja Brijnath Singh had two wives, Smt. Surendra Kumari and Smt. Tej Kumari. He had two sons from his first wife and one son from the second wife Rani Tej Kumari. On 11.2.1966 Maharaja Brijnath Singh executed a registered Will bequeathing Palace of Maihar and Privy Purse to the sons of first wife and the rest of the property to Rani Tej Kumari for her son after making provision for maintenance for others in his life time. The plaintiff Chandra Nath Kala claimed possession of the disputed property situated in Kydganj, Allahabad from the time of his ancestors. However, soon after the death of Maharaja Brijnath Singh on 13.10.1968, Govind Singh, son of senior Maharani executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendants Trijugi Narain Dubey and Surendra Nath by means of a sale-deed dated 18.11.1968. After the sale-deed was executed, Trijugi Narain and another tried to take possession and this led to the institution of the Original Suit No. 194 of 1968, Sanku and Chandra Nath Kala v. Trijugi Narain and Surendra Nath. The suit was instituted on 20.11.1968 i.e. two days after the sale-deed was executed by Govind Singh. The relief of injunction was claimed to restrain the defendants from interfering in plaintiffs possession over the property which consists of Kotharies and a compound. The title was claimed by adverse possession. Temporary injunction was granted on 21.11.1968 and according to the plaintiff-appellant, the injunction is operative till date, and they continue to be in possession. Rani Tej Kumari executed a special power of attorney in favour of Sri Vimal Kumar Singh in respect of the property in suit (old No. 9, new No. 6), Chaukhandi, Kydganj, Allahabad and two plots in Mohalla Arail to conduct negotiation for sale etc. The special power of attorney is on record as Paper No. 43-A. The facts pleaded further reveal that the plaintiff who claimed possession since much before 30 years, got the sale-deed executed in favour of Chandra Nath Kala by Rani Tej Kumari (through his power of attorney) on 6.6.1969. An amendment application was filed in Original Suit No. 194 of 1968 with a prayer to bring the subsequent events in the pleadings which was allowed by the trial Court. The defendants filed a civil revision challenging the order of the trial Court allowing the amendment application filed by Chandra Nath Kala to include the facts regarding execution of the sale-deed in his favour by Rani Tej Kumari. Thus the amendment was with a view to raise an alternative plea. After the amendment was allowed, it was incorporated in the plaint which resulted in setting up of the plaintiffs claim on two grounds; (i) by adverse possession (ii) alternatively on the basis of the sale-deed by Rani Tej Kumari who was given exclusive right on the basis of the Will in her favour by Raja Brijnath Singh. The Civil Revision No. 125 of 1971 was allowed by this Court on 10.12.1971 and the order of the trial Court allowing the amendment application was set at naught. After the aforesaid judgment, Chandra Nath Kala instituted another Original Suit No. 64 of 1972, Chandra Nath Kala v. Trijugi Narain. Surendra Narain and Sankoo were also arrayed as one of the defendants. This suit was instituted on 7.3.1972 claiming their right over the disputed property on the basis of the sale-deed as well. Both the suits namely Suit Nos. 194 of 1968 and 64 of 1972 were considered and tried together, though the evidence was led in Original Suit No. 194 of 1968 which was treated as the leading case. Sanku who was co-plaintiff in the earlier suit with Chandra Nath Kala was arrayed as a defendant in the subsequent suit. He filed his written statement oh 27.9.1972 claiming that they were owners in possession and they had perfected their possessory title, thus the claim set up by the plaintiff-appellant Chandra Nath Kala was accepted by Sanku who was arrayed as one of the defendants in the subsequent suit. The name of Sanku was already entered as lessee of the State in the Municipal record. However, Trijugi Narain and Chandra Nath Kala filed applications for making entries of their names on the basis of the sale-deed. NagarAdhikari, Mahapalika dismissed the applications of the defendant-respondent Trijugi Narain but the application of the appellant Chandra Nath Kala was allowed on 7.8.1976. This judgment was challenged before the Small Causes Court by Trijugi Narain which was allowed on 10.12.1982. The Additional District Judge vide order dated 18.3.1983 allowed the mutation Second Appeal No. 3 of 1983 setting aside the order of the Judge Small Causes Court in favour of Trijugi Narain and restored the order of the NagarAdhikari dated 7.8.1976 directing entry of name of Chandra Nath Kala. All these orders are also on record and was adduced in evidence.
(3.) THE defendants denied the plaintiffs case and claimed that Raja Brijnath Singh had no right to execute the Will In favour of Rani Tej Kumari. The sale-deed executed by Govind Singh in favour of Trijugi Narain and others was for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- and property in question being a Joint Hindu Family, it could not have been bequeathed to Rani Tej Kumari exclusively. Besides, after the amendment was rejected, the subsequent Suit No. 64 of 1972 was not maintainable.;