JIT SINGH Vs. KALAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Jit Singh against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judges, Kangra, affirming that of the Court of first instance passing in a decree in favour of Shrimati Kalapati and others, plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claiming to be the daughters of Beli Ram and Bishan Devi instituted the present suit for possession of the land in question on the following circumstances.

(2.) BISHAN Devi was the owner of one half share in Khata No. 84 having got this land from her husband Beli Ram; the other half is said to be owned by Beli Ram's reversioners. The whole of his Khata was 23 kanals and 16 marlas and was undivided. On 4th October, 1952, Shrimati Bishen Devi mortgaged her half share. On 25th of March, 1953, Beli Ram's reversioners filed a suit for possession of her share of the land on the allegation that she had become unchaste and had also remarried. This suit was decreed on 31st March, 1954, the Court holding Shrimati bishen Devi to have become unchaste. As a result of this litigation, the whole of khata No. 84 came into the possession of the reversioners. In 1955, half the khata in question was sole by the reversioners in favour of Jit Singh appellant in this Court by means of an oral sale. On 9th October, 1958, the daughters of shrimati Bishen Devi and Beli Ram instituted the present suit for possession of half share of the Khata in question on the ground that they were the heirs entitled to succeed to this land. This suit has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that Jit Singh the present appellant was imploded as defendant No. 4 and it was he who along took the matter in appeal to the Court of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and having failed there has preferred the present appeal in this Court. He failed a joint written statement along with the other collateral's of Beli Ram and in addition to the pleas urged by them Jit Singh also contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the title of the plaintiffs. On this plea, issue No. 7 was framed which is in the following terms: