BALAK RAM Vs. RUKHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on pleadings that the land in dispute was joint property of the plaintiff Balakram and his brother Alva. Alva died in the year 1946 leaving behind two daughters with no son to succeed. It was the case of the plaintiff that as Alva had no son, plaintiff Balakram, who was the sole surviving male, succeeded to the entire property and his name was accordingly recorded under an order passed on 10-1-1949 by the Revenue Officer. It was the pleadings of the plaintiff that ever since then, he has been cultivating possession land in dispute. It was also pleaded that the defendants have no title or interest in the property nor they are in possession because defendants were married in their childhood itself and since then, they are residing in the matrimonial house. It was also pleaded that at the time of death of Alva, old customary Hindu Law was in force under which, widows or daughters were not entitled to inherit the property of the deceased. As the defendants started interfering to get their names recorded in the revenue records, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file suit.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, claim of the plaintiff was denied on the pleadings that Alva was survived by his widow and two daughters as per the then applicable Riyasat Law, defendants were entitled to half of the share in the property but by misleading the revenue officer, plaintiff got an order passed in his favour. It was also pleaded that after death of Alva, defendants were being maintained out of the income derived from the land in dispute and defendants resided in the house of late Alva. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 were married and expenses of marriage were incurred from the disputed property. Defendant No. 1 was married in the year 1956 whereas defendant No. 2 was married in the year 1956-60. It was asserted that the property in dispute was joint family property of the defendants, therefore, they are entitled to half of the share in the said property. The defendants also pleaded that the defendants are in possession of the land in dispute along with the plaintiff and deriving the benefits of income from the disputed property.