HARDAYAL Vs. MST DAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against an appellate decree of District Judge Balak Ram dated 7-10-1947 reversing the decree of the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff had been decreed.

(2.) The parties to the case are kumhars of Sirsa Tehsil. Mussammat Dakhan is the widow of Harsukh who died before the year 1930. Dungar plaintiff is the real uncle (father's brother) of Harsukh deceased. On 30-94932 a suit was brought by Musmmmat Dakhan for possession of 46 bighas 11 biswas of land situate in Mauza Chakkan in the Tehsil of Sirsa against Dungar. His defence was that Mussammat Dakhan had lost her right to the property as she had remarried Nanu, son of Dungar plaintiff, and in the alternative that she was unchaste. This suit was decreed and it was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that remarriage was not proved nor was unchastity established.

(3.) On 13-7-1944 Dungar brought a suit for declaration that he was owner by adverse possession of 25 Bighas 8 Biswas in Mauza Gandran and 43 Bighas and 10 Biswas in Mauaa Chakkan. He also sued for declaration that Mussammat Dakhan had contracted 'karewa' marriage with Nanu, the plaintiff's son, & had also become unchaste & had thereby lost her right to possession of the estate of her husband Harsukh. The defence was that there was no remarriage and that she (Mussammat Dakhan) was carrying on a liaison with Nanu, son of Dungar, and therefore there was no forfeiture of the estate. The trial Court held that remarriage had not been proved, that according to the statement made by the widow she was unchaste with Nanu and others, that unchastity had been proved and that adverse possession of the land in Mauza Chakkan had been established. On appeal being taken to the District Judge, he held that unchastity had been proved and that under custom by which the parties were governed the widow was not divested of her estate and that adverse possession had not been proved. The plain-tiff has come up in appeal to this Court.