GIANO Vs. MOTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal from the judgment of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who has affirmed in appeal the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial Judge. The plaintiffs are the collaterals of Gurdas who was the last male holder of 87 Kanals of land situated in village Jia Natha in Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, This land was held by Jas Kaur, widow of Gurdas, after his death. Jas Kaur made a gift of this land in favour of her daughter, the appellant, Mst. Giano. On Jas Kaur's death, the respondent-collaterals brought a suit for possession of the land on the allegation that the property being ancestral could not have been gifted away by Jas Kaur in favour of her daughter. This suit was decreed by Mr. Hira Lal Jain, Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 30-12-1953 vide Ex. P. 6. The learned Judge, on a discussion of issue No. 1, came to a conclusion that Giano was entitled to retain possession of the land in lieu of maintenance till her marriage in accordance with the Riwaj-i-am of Hoshiarpur District compiled by Mr. Humphreys. Mst. Giano continued to retain possession of this land till her marriage which took place on 5th of March 1956. The collaterals took forcible possession of this land some time after 17th of June 1956 and Giano had to bring a suit for possession of this land. This suit was decreed and while Giano was executing the decree, the collaterals brought the present suit for restraining her from executing the decree on the ground that she was not entitled to retain possession of the land after her marriage on 5th of March 1956, It was pleaded by Giano that the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on 17th of June 1956 converted her possession into one of an absolute estate under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following three substantive

(3.) The first two issues were decided in favour of Giano and it was found that she retained possession of the land till the passing of the Hindu Succession Act on 17th of June 1956. On the third issue, however, it was found that the judgment and decree of Mr. Hira Lal Jain (Exhibit P. 6) of 30th of December 1953 conferred a right on Giano to retain possession of the land only till her marriage which took place on 5th of March 1956. Thereafter, she became a trespasser and her possession was not protected under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The lower appellate Court, in the appeal preferred by Giano, upheld the findings and decision of the trial Judge. Giano has now come in second appeal to this Court.