Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36085 of 2000 Petitioner :- Aparnesh Pal Singh & Others Respondent :- D.J, Kanpur & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.M.A. Kazmi,Manish Tandon,Ravi Kiran Jain Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,M.D.S.Shekhar Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, but none appears for the
contesting respondents even in the revised list.
The dispute relates to premises no.119/380 (old) and 119/731 (new),
Darshanpurwa, Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioners claim that
their grand mother Raj Mata Pamarin Judeo executed a registered will
deed dated 19.9.1994 of the aforesaid property in their favour and
after she expired on 14.10.1994, they became owners thereof. In the
mean while, the husband of respondent no.4 also set up a
unregistered will deed dated 7.10.1994 and on that basis instituted
Misc. Case No. 6 of 1995 for probate wherein the petitioners were
impleaded which is pending. The petitioners thereafter instituted
regular Suit No. 89 of 1997 for permanent injunction and declaration
against the husband of respondent no.4 on the strength of his
registered will wherein interim injunction was granted on 15.4.1997
directing the parties to maintain status quo and which order is
continuing. After the death of husband of respondent no.4, one
Jitendra Pathak, respondent no.3 claimed his right over the said
property on the basis of another unregistered will deed dated
15.12.1998 and he moved an impleadment application in Suit No.89 of
1997 filed by the petitioners. After expiry of respondent no.4, her
daughters have instituted a fresh Suit No. 782 of 2001 challenging the
alleged unregistered will deed in favour of respondent no.3 wherein
also an interim injunction order has been passed on 16th of July 2001.
All the three suits are still pending.
The disputed property was in possession of tenants Ravi Khanna and
Sanjay Khanna but after construction of their own house, they
surrendered the possession to the petitioners upon which the
petitioners filed an application for release under Section 16 (1)(b) of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and on that basis vacancy was declared by
the Rent Controller on 29th of June 1998. However, the husband of
respondent no.4 also filed his own release application on 22.12.1998.
It is apparent from the record that the matter was finally heard on 11th
of February 1999 with regard to both the aforesaid release applications
and 22nd February 1999 was fixed for final order but the final order
was never pronounced and the husband of respondent no.4 expired
on 5.3.1999 whereupon the respondent no.4 was impleaded in his
place. In the mean time it appears that the respondent no.3 filed his
own release application on 9th June 1999 and without notice and
opportunity to the petitioners, both the release applications were
dismissed on 4th of September 1999. On 11th of April 2000 the
respondent no.3 filed an application for recall whereafter an order
dated 12th of June 2000 has been passed releasing the disputed
accommodation in favour of respondent no.3 against which review filed
by the petitioners has been dismissed and so also the revision which is
under challenge.
From the aforementioned facts, it is apparent that there is serious
dispute between the parties with regard to ownership of the disputed
premises for which atleast three suits are pending.
Considering the aforesaid, it appears appropriate that the parties may
get their rights adjudicated in the pending suits before proceeding in
this writ petition. In the mean time the status quo would continue.
Order Date :- 13.7.2010
PKG