HARNAM KAUR Vs. SHER SINGH ATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by Harnam Kaur and another is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, he affirmed the declaratory decree granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by the trial court.

(2.) HARNAM Kaur, widow of Chanan Singh a jat, resident of village Rajewal, Tehsii samrala, District Ludhiana, executed a registered will dated 4-1-1954 in respect of her estate in favour of Mohinder Kaur, grand-daughter of Sher Singh brother of chanan Singh, Sher Singh thereupon brought the present suit for a declaration that the aforesaid will executed by Harnam Kaur, who was impleaded as defendant no. 1, in favour of Mohinder Kaur, defendant No. 2, would not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff after the death or re-marriage of Harnam Kaur. According to the plaintiff, the parties were governed by Customary Law and the property comprised in the Will was ancestral of Chanan Singh qua the plaintiff. The suit was contested by Harnam Kaur and Mohinder Kaur. According to them, chanan Singh, husband of Harnam Kaur, made a gift of two-third share of the property in dispute in favour of Harnam Kaur during his lifetime and thus made her full owner of two-third share. The will in favour of Mohinder Kaur was stated to have been made in lieu of services and was stated to be valid under customary law. Following issues were framed by the trial Court:

(3.) IN second appeal, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the finding of the Courts below on the point as to whether Harnam kaur field the property in dispute as a limited owner or not is not correct. In this respect, I find that Exhibit 0-2 is the copy of mutation No. 973 which was sanctioned in favour of Harnam Kaur on 28-5-1943 when Chanan Singh made a gift of two-third share in his land in favour of Harnam Kaur. It was an oral gift and the order of the Revenue Officer shows that at the time of the mutation Chanan singh, Harnam Kaur and Sher Singh were present. Sher Singh plaintiff then stated that he had no objection to the gift provided Harnam Kaur agreed not to squander the property. Harnam Kaur then gave an undertaking not to squander the land gifted in her favour. The gift itself was described as a Tamlik. The mutation was thereafter sanctioned in favour of Harnam Kaur. The learned counsel for the appellants has cited Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal, AIR 1951 SC 139, wherein it has been held that there is no warrant for the proposition that when a grant of an immovable property is made to a Hindu female, she does not get an absolute or alienable interest in such property, unless such power is expressly conferred upon her. It has further been laid down that to convey an absolute estate to a Hindu female, no express power of alienation need be given and that it is enough if words are used of such amplitude as would convey full rights of ownership. The word 'tamliknama' was also considered in the above' authority and it was held to mean a document by which ownership rights were transferred.