BALBIR KAUR Vs. HARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Balbir Kaur and her minor daughter Harijit Kaur against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, vide which the suit for possession filed by Harinder Kaur plaintiff regarding the room in question, which is only 19'-4" x 14'-11", has been decreed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Major Chanan Singh, who was owner of a house, consisting of more than five rooms, was having one son and four daughters. Appellant No. 1 Balbir Kaur was married to his son Ranbir Singh. After the marriage, she was given a separate room in the said house to live in with her husband. Out of this wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. The relations between appellant No.1 and her husband Ranbir Singh remained strained, but the appellant continued to reside in the room in question. Thereafter, her husband expired in the year 1975. After the death of her husband, she continued to reside in the said room along with her three children. In the year 1977, her father-in-law Major Chanan Singh gifted the entire house including the room in dispute to his daughter Harinder Kaur (plaintiff) vide gift deed dated 28/01/1977 (Ex. P.2). On 2/05/1977, about four months after the execution of the gift deed, Harinder Kaur, daughter of Major Chanan Singh, filed the suit for possession against the appellants and respondents Nos. 2 and 3, (who are sons of appellant No.1) pleading that her father Major Chanan Singh was owner of the entire house and he allowed his son Ranbir Singh, his wife and children to use the room in question for their residence. Since then appellant No. 1 and her children are in permissive occupation of the room. She further pleaded that since her father Major Chanan Singh has gifted away the entire house to her, therefore, she is entitled to have possession of the same. The defendants-appellants contested the said suit by alleging that appellant No.1 is in possession of the room in question from the date of her marriage, which took place about 30 years back. She is in hostile and adverse possession of this room. In the alternative, it was submitted that on account of her relationship with Major Chanan Singh, she and her children are entitled to maintenance and right of residence in this house as dependents of Ranbir Singh and respondent No.1 is bound by this obligation and cannot evict them from the room in question.

(3.) Both the courts below have decreed the suit of respondent No.1. The contention of appellant No.1 and her children regarding adverse possession as well as their right to maintenance and residence against the estate of Major Chanan Singh in the hand of respondent No.1 has been declined.