JAGIR SINGH Vs. SMT. RESHAM KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the unsuccessful Plaintiff whose suit stands dismissed by the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below. It has arisen in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE property in dispute was owned by one Buta Singh. On his demise, his estate was mutated in the name of his widow Resham Kaur, Defendant Respondent No. 1, and his son Jagar Singh, plaintiff -Appellant, in equal shares. The Plaintiff -Appellant was the son of Buta Singh from another wife. His step -mother sharing the estate was not acceptable to him He consequently filed a suit for possession against him step mother. Despite contest, a settlement was effected , vide statements of parties Ex P -l and P -3 whereupon a judgment in accordance therewith was pronounced vide Ex P 7, on 22nd August, 1943. As a result thereof Resham Kaur was able to retain 93 Kanals of agricultural land and the balance was retrieved from h r by her step son. The land thus kept for Resham Kaur was couched in the shell of a life estate a situation well known in the customary law of Punjab, whereunder a widow cannot tell or otherwise transfer her life estate execpt(sic) for legal necessity and for consideration. Somehow, the settlement effected between the parties was not lasting and it gave rise to another spree of litigation Then again, vide document Exhibit P -l, dated 28th April, 1944, some more agricultural land was given to her on the same terms and in recognition of the pre -existing rights. She remained in possession of her life -estate when the Hindu Succession Acot, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into operation and considering herself to be the absolute owner of the property in her possession, she transferred the said property in favour of the contesting Respondents Nos 2 and 3, vide registered sale -deed Exhibit D -l dated 13th february, 1959. This gave rise to the suit by her step -son jagir(sic) Singh Plaintiff claiming a declaration to the effect that the sale effected by Resham Kaur in favour of the contesting Defendant -Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was fictitious, collusive and without consideration and he was entitled to take possession of that land without making any payment to the vendees, after the death of Resham Kaur. The suit was contested by the vendees, Defendant Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, alone. On the pleadings of the parties the following Issues were framed:

(3.) WHETHER the Defendant No. 1 is estopped from resisting the suit ? If so, to what effect and extent ?