CHANDAN SINGH Vs. RANDHEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/95 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 26.7.2002 on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession and permanent injunction. They pleaded that Pratap Singh and Imratsingh were real brothers and Imratsingh had two sons i.e. Mangalsingh and Panchamsingh. Mangal Singh had two sons i.e. Chandan Singh and Vinay Singh. Plaintiffs are sons of Mangalsingh. Panchamsingh had no sons or daughter, he died issueless, hence they become owner of the property of Panchamsingh which was agriculture land and a house. The Defendants denied the claim of the Plaintiffs. They pleaded that Bhuribai was a widow woman and after the death of her husband she married with Panchamsingh and she executed a registered gift deed on 29.9.1965 in favour of the Defendants and on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed they became owner of the suit property. The suit land was mutated in favour of Bhuribai. Bhuribai died in Samvat 2025. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence has held that earlier Bhuribai was married to Kalyansingh and after death of Kalyansingh on the basis of evidence she became the wife of Panchamsingh and she executed a gift deed in favour of the Defendants on 29.9.1965 and because the land came in favour of Bhuribai hence the Plaintiffs have no right over the suit property, the aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the first Appellate Court.

(3.) The learned senior counsel has submitted that both the Courts have committed error of law in holding the factum of marriage between Bhuribai and Panchamsingh proved although from the evidence it is clear that no marriage ceremony was performed as per law. Hence, when there was no marriage ceremony as per law, Bhuribai could not inherit the suit property. Hence, the findings of both the Courts are perverse. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied on a judgment of the Division Bench Damroolal Harchand and Ors. v. Laxminarayan Ramanujdas Brijpuria and Ors., 1976 MPLJ 518 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh and Ors., 1994 AIR(SC) 135. Contrary to this learned Counsel for the Respondents Defendants has submitted that both the Courts have rightly held that Pancham Singh and Bhuribai were husband and wife and in such circumstances the suit of the Plaintiffs has rightly been dismissed. In support of his contention he relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayaphi and Ors., 1994 AIR(SC) 133 and Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, 1952 AIR(SC) 231.