CHHAJJU RAM Vs. BHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which, in the final analysis, requires determination in this regular first appeal is whether Smt. Bhuri had become the absolute owner of the property in question.

(2.) The following pedigree table may be reproduced for understanding the relationship between the parties :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_372_DLT5_1969Html1.htm</FRM> Shri Chhajju Ram son of Shri Nathu Parshad instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the alienation by gift of one-half portion of house No. 3472 described in the plaint by defendant No. I in favour of Subhash Chandra and Suresh Chandra, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, by means of a registered deed dated 26th July, 1957, is null and void, being against Hindu Law and that it should not affect the reversionary rights and interests of the plaintiff after Smt. Bhuri's death or re-marriage. In the plaint, it has been very clearly stated that defendant No. 1 has a widow's estate in one half of the house No. 3472, but it is claimed that this estate was acquired as the result of a declaratory decree in suit No. 108 of 1937 (Chhajju v. Smt. Ridhi) decided by Shri Kartar Singh Chadha, Subordinate Judge 3rd Class. Delhi on 14th February 1938 and again in suit No. 1009 of 1950 (Smt. Bhuri v. Gopi Kishan) decided by Shri 0m Nath Vohra, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, on 21st December, 1953. One-hall share allotted by the preliminary decree was separated by the final decree dated 20th May, 1954 made by Shri Brij Lal Mago, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi.

(3.) The trial Court came to the conclusion that by virtue of section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act No. 30 of 1956, Smt. Bhuri had become full owner of the property in dispute with the result that the gift made by her was not open to challenge by the plaintiff.