PADMAN Vs. HANWANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, dated the 17th of July 1909, and the dispute relates to the property of one Daula, a Jat by origin who migrated from Bikanir many years ago and settled in the Ferozepore District. He died in April 1902, leaving a large family of sons and grandsons and considerable landed property

(2.) THE following pedigree will explain the relative position of the contesting parties in the present litigation. DAULA | __________________________________|_____________________________ | | | | | ||Chetan Taja Tulsa Mra Khema Asa Pura Hanwanta | (Plff 3) | (Plff.2) || (Plff.1)| | _________ _________ | | | | | | || Padma | Uda Nanda Bhinja Lekh Ram Ram Sukh (Defendant 1) (Plff 4. ) (Plff 5. ) (Deft. 9)(Plff.6) (Defendent 8) | | | | || Peman Suja Uman Lakhu Jalu Biru (Defendant 2) (Defendant 3) (Defendant 4) (Defendant 5)(Defendant 6) (Defendant 7)

(3.) ON Daula's death, there were the usual mutation proceedings for the registration of the names of his successors in the Collector's Register, in the course of which the devisees under the second will claimed to have their names recorded to the exclusion of Chetan's and Tulsa's representatives. In view, however, of the provisions of the will of 1884, the Collector ordered the names to be entered in eight shares and referred the contending parties to settle their respective claims in the Civil Court. This happened in September 1902, and in December following the present suit was brought by the persons taking under the second will against the representatives of Chetan and Tulsa, defendants 1 to 7, to establish the plaintiffs' claim under the will of 1898 and to recover possession of the one-fourth share of Daula's lands in respect of which Chetan and Tulsa had been recorded as owners. This one-fourth includes the shares of Ram Sukh and Bhinja, who, on their refusal to join in the action, had been made defendants (8 and 9).