BALBIRI DEVI Vs. TEJBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.05, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which, it accepted the appeal, against the Judgment and decree dated 08.11.02, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that, Rulia Ram @ Ruhla, was the father of Tejbir Singh, Somwati and Rajesh Kumari, and the husband of Balbiri Devi and Chandrawati. He died on 05.02.82. Tejbir Singh, Plaintiff claimed that, the land, in dispute, measuring 112 kanals, was ancestral joint Hindu Family Property, in the lands of his father Rulia Ram @ Ruhla, and, as such, he (plaintiff) had got equal share, therein, since his birth. It was stated that, after the death of Rulia Ram @ Rulha, the revenue authorities, wrongly entered and sanctioned the mutation No. 2014 dated 23.03.83 of inheritance of the estate of Rulia Ram, to the extent of share each in favour of Tejbir Singh, plaintiff and, Somwati and Rajesh Kumari, defendants Nos. 3 and 4, whereas, the mutation, in respect of the remaining share, was jointly sectioned, in favour of Balbiri Devi and Chandrawati (widows of Rulia Ram), defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It was further stated that since the plaintiff was already owner to the extent of share, in the land, on the death of Rulia Ram, mutation should have been sectioned in respect of 1/2 share i.e. 56 kanals of land, only. It was further stated that in 1/2 share left by Rulia Ram, the plaintiff was having 5/8 share, whereas, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (widows), were jointly having 1/8 share, and, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 (daughter), were having 1/8 share each, in the land. The defendants were many a time, asked to treat the aforesaid mutation, as illegal, null and void, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession, was filed.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1, 3, and 4, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiff, had no locus-standi, to file the suit; that no cause of action, accrued to the plaintiff, to file the suit; that the suit was time barred; and that the suit, had not been properly valued, for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. It was admitted that Tejbir Singh, plaintiff, is the son, Somwati and Rajesh Kumari, defendants Nos. 3 and 4, are the daughters, and, Balbiri Devi and Chandrawati, are the widows of Rulia Ram @ Ruhla, who died, on 05.02.82. It was denied that the land, in dispute, was ancestral Joint Hindu Family Property, in the hands of Rulia Ram @ Ruhla. It was further denied that the plaintiff, had got interest, to the extent of half share, in the land, in dispute, with the father, since his birth. It was stated forther that since the land in dispute, was the self acquired, property of Rulia Ram @ Ruhla, the mutation of inheritance Nos. 2014, was rightly sanctioned, and, as such, was legal and binding upon the parties. It was further, denied that the plaintiff, got 5/8 share, and, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, got 1/8 share, in equal shares, whereas, defendants Nos. 3 and 4, got 1/8 share each in the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4, got 1/ 4 share each, whereas, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, got the remaining 1/ 4 share, in equal shares, in the suit land, which they inherited on the death of Rulia Ram @ Ruhla. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.