KANWAR MOTI SINGH Vs. CHARJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment, will dispose of two appeals, R. F. A. No. 173 of 1948 and R. F. A. NO. 53 of 1949. R. F. A. No. 173 of 1948 is brought by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by Mr. H. C. Mittal, Senior Subordinate Judge, Dharamsala, dated 1-10-1948 decreeing the plaintiff's suit and R. F. A. No. 55 of 1949 is brought by the plaintiff to vary the decree.

(2.) IN order to understand the facts of the case it will perhaps be advantageous to give a short pedigree-table of the parties: bachittar SINGH __________________________________|______________________________ | | | | | sahib Singh Gian Singh Sanghat Singh Amar Singh Kehr Singh. | died on | 15. 9. 41 moti Singh Charjo widow plaintiff.

(3.) ON 6-4-1940 there was a partition of the estate of Bachittar Singh and separate possession was taken of their respective shares by Sangat Singh, Amar Singh and Kehr Singh. The property which fell to the share of Moti Singh and Gian Singh was allowed to remain joint. In mutation, ex. D. 5, page 82 of the printed paper boob, it was shown that land with 'kothi' situate at Mahal palampur would belong exclusively to Moti Singh cosharer. Land in Tika Thumb a, Dakhli salon fell to the share of Moti Singh and Gian Singh in equal shares. Similarly, lands situated in other villages fell to the share of other brothers. On 14-8-1941, by a registered sale deed, Ex. P. 12, Gian Singh purported to se!l for a sum of Rs. 22,000/- the whole of his land, mortgagee rights, tea and rice machines, oil pressing machines, electric power house and cither accessories with all rights therein. No money was paid at the time of registration, but Moti Singh undertook to pay the two creditors of Gian Singh -- Dilbagh Rai and Manohar Lal. This document was registered at the house of Thakar Gian Singh at 7 p. m. the same day. Mutation of this sale was entered and was sanctioned on 1-2-1942. It is stated in the mutation proceedings that Mt, Charjo, the widow of Gian Singh, appeared before the Revenue Officer and stated that Moti Singh had agreed to give her maintenance and therefore she raised no objection to the mutation being sanctioned. On 7-7-1942 Sangat Singh, Amar Singh and Kehr Singh brought a suit against Moti Singly making Mt. Charjo a party, that the alienation was effected fictitiously without consideration and with the intention of defeating the claim of the reversioners and that it would not affect their reversionary rights after the death of the widow, Mt. Charjo. This suit was decreed and on an appeal being taken to the High Court it was held by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Teja Singh and Marten JJ.) that "the sale was a fictitious transaction and not a single pie had been paid" and the appeal was therefore dismissed. This was on 8-2-1946. It may here be remarked that Mt. Charjo had been made a party (defendant) in that suit, but at. her instance her name was struck off on 11-8-1943.