HARBANS KAUR Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which her suit for declaration and joint possession as an owner of 1/2 share of the land comprising in Khasra No.22/9/2, 11-12-19/20-21/1, 22/2, 23/6/2-7-14-15-16/2-3-4/1, 5/2-6/1, 25/1/1, 189, 190, 196/1, 215, total land measuring 86 Kanals 7 Marlas, as entered in Khatauni No.178, Khewat No.125, as per jamabandi of 1977-78 of village Thakkarwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana as co-heirs of Puran Singh, has been dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff and defendants are related to each other being heirs of a common ancestor, as per the pedigree table, which is reproduced as under: -

(3.) According to the plaintiff, Bakhshish Singh was married to Jai Kaur (defendant No.3) and had two daughters, namely, Chhoti (defendant No.4) and Nachhattar Kaur (defendant No.5). Bakhshish Singh pre-deceased his father Puran Singh. After his death, his widow Jai Kaur (defendant No.3) was married to Dalip Singh and gave birth to Jaswant Singh (defendant No.1) and Sukhdev Singh (defendant No.2). Smt. Kaki D/o Puran Singh also pre-deceased her father leaving behind Harbans Kaur (plaintiff). It was alleged that Puran Singh died six years before 04.09.1969 leaving behind the plaintiff and Dalip Singh as his heirs. Mutation of the estate of Puran Singh took place on 18.07.1969, but could not be completed. No information was ever received by the plaintiff in respect of the mutation proceedings. She came to know about it in June 1976 which was decided against her. She filed an appeal but it was dismissed. It was alleged that the defendants kept concealed the death of Puran Singh with the sole purpose to keep the plaintiff in dark about a right vested in her. It was also alleged that earlier she had filed a suit on the same facts which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that defendants No.4 and 5 were not joined as necessary party. Then she had filed an application in appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"], but the same was dismissed on 15.03.1979. It was also alleged that second appeal was pending in the High Court at the time of filing of the present suit which was filed after including defendant Nos.4 and 5 as the defendants. In the written statement, it was alleged that the plaintiff is not related to Puran Singh. The pedigree table was denied. Defendant No.3 is not the widow of Bakhshish Singh. It was admitted that earlier suit filed by the plaintiff on the same cause of action was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed, but the second appeal was pending before the High Court.