JAGDISH Vs. BARHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, affirming the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge whereby the plaintiff applicant's suit for possession of certain land situate in Tika Dadhuna Dakhali Garh Jamoela, Tehsil Palampur, along with share in Shamilat was dismissed.

(2.) The facts found by the Court below are as follows :-

(3.) Both these alienations were challenged in a suit brought by Jogdish and his father Prabhu on 4-3-1946 on the ground that the same having been made by a widow having only a life-estate in the property were void and ineffective and were not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs as her husband's collaterals. On 25-7-1947 a compromise was arrived at between the parties) to the effect that after the death of Smt. Janki, plaintiffs shall be entitled to get 12/44 share of the alienated land without any encumbrance. A decree in terms of compromise was accordingly passed on the same date. Smt. Janki died on 7-9-1965 and on her death the plaintiff Jagdish asserted his claim for possession of the land in terms of the compromise decree. His claim was, however, repudiated by the defendants. He, therefore, instituted the suit which has given rise to the present appeal. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claim on various grounds. In this' appeal, however, we are concerned with only one ground which found favour with both the Courts below and has resulted in the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff was constrained to admit that his right to the property in dispute was based on the decree (Ex. P.6) passed in terms of the compromise deed (Ex. P.I.) otherwise he was only a remote reversioner and Smt. Manshan who was the daughter of Janki's husband's brother, was the nearest heir to succeed to the property at the time of Janki's death. He had, therefore, no right to inherit the property as such.