LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-172

BELA BAI Vs. ADHINRAM DIED

Decided On November 20, 2019
Bela Bai Appellant
V/S
Adhinram Died Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 29/04/2003 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 17/01/2002 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.50-A/87. Learned lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Respondent / plaintiff-Adhinram filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against his step mother-Leela Bai, the original defendant, on the pleadings inter alia that he is the son of Kehri who died prior to 1940. As pleaded, respondent / Leela Bai was step mother with whom, Kehri had performed 'choori' marriage. According to the plaintiff, his father-Kehri died prior to 1940, he being the only son and property in dispute described in schedule-C in the capacity of Maurusi (occupancy tenant), only plaintiff-Adhinram succeeded to the property and his step mother did not get any right in the property as a female successor. It was also pleaded that at the time of death of Kehri, plaintiff was minor, the disputed property was being managed by his mother and her name was also recorded without notice and knowledge of the plaintiff and taking undue advantage of this, when defendant-Leela Bai applied for partition by moving application before the Revenue Authority on 02/03/1987, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to seek declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) Leela Bai, in her written statement denied plaintiff's claim and stated that Kehri died 35 - 40 years before the date of filing of her written statement and was survived by Adhinram, Leela Bai and two daughters-Bela Bai and Ghasnin Bai who were born out of wedlock of Kehri. Defendant's case was that the property in dispute was not the ancestral property but Kehri was absolute owner. Defendants denied that Kehri was occupancy tenant. According to the defendants, by application of Personal Law of Succession applicable to Hindus prior to coming into force of Succession Act, after death of Kehri, his widow-the defendant also succeeded to the property in equal share along with Adhinram. According to the defendants, Kehri died after 1948. It was also pleaded that after death of Kehri, the defendants also succeeded to the property and that was duly recorded in that capacity but the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the same nor took any remedy for long 50 years. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation.