LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-199

PREM CHAND Vs. RAM NATH DECEASED THROUGH LRS

Decided On February 21, 2014
PREM CHAND Appellant
V/S
Ram Nath Deceased Through Lrs Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 14.7.2011 whereby the first appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction (Suit No. 216/1976) filed by the appellant/plaintiff. Disputes pertain to rights in residential house bearing no. 198/29, Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. When the suit was filed disputes were between the appellant/plaintiff and his father Ram Nath. Sh. Ram Nath expired during the pendency of the suit leaving behind a Will dated 10.8.1976, Ex. PW-1/1 in favour of his wife Smt. Leela Wati giving her a life estate in the suit property and after her death the property to devolve upon the other sons Sh. Manohar Lal, Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Vijay Kumar, the respondents herein. The wife of Sh. Ram Nath Smt. Leela Wati, mother of the parties, expired on 7.11.1999 intestate.

(2.) Appellant/plaintiff in the suit had pleaded that the suit property was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property but he failed to prove that the suit property was HUF property, however, since father Sh. Ram Nath died during the pendency of the suit leaving the suit property by means of a Will in favour of his wife Smt. Leelawati, mother of the parties, and by which Will a life estate was created in favour of Smt. Leela Wati, trial court held that the life estate in favour of Smt. Leela Wati was converted to a full ownership by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and since Smt. Leela Wati died intestate appellant/plaintiff being the son and one of the legal heirs of Smt. Leela Wati became co-owner in the suit property. The relevant observations of the trial court in this regard are contained in the following paras of its judgment:

(3.) First appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court by holding that the estate which was received by Smt. Leela Wati was not converted into a full ownership, and for this purpose the first appellate court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gumpha (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Jaibai, 1994 2 SCC 511. The relevant observations of the first appellate court are contained in paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 of the judgment and which read as under :