SURAJ BHAN Vs. BAIDOO JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to S. A. O. No. 30 of 1955 and R. F. As. Nos. 111 and 112 of 1960 are that Suraj Bhan plaintiff claiming himself to be the 9th degree collateral of Smt. Baidoo's husband Jai Ram who was shown as defendant no. 1 in the suit, filed a suit for declaration that it be held that the seven alienations made by Smt. Baidoo, defendant No. 1, mentioned in the plaint in favour of defendants Nos. 3, 8 and 11 to 15 were without consideration, necessity and authority, and were fictitious, null and void and the same had no effect on the rights of the plaintiff after the death or second marriage of Smt. Baidoo, defendant no. 1 and that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/2 share of the property left by Jai ram. It may be pointed out that all the persons, in whose favour the alienations had been made, were impleaded as defendants. This suit was resisted by the defendants Nos. 1, 3, 8 and 11 to 15 and a number of pleas were raised before the trial Court. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) IT was held by the trial Court on issue No. 1 that the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the present suit. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 were held not have arisen for decision because of the finding on issue No. 1. Issue No. 4 was decided against the defendants and under issue No. 5 it was held that the widow had only life estate. Issue No. 6 was not pressed and the same was decided against the defendants. Issue No. 7 was also decided against the defendants. In view of the above findings on issue No. 1, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned trial judge. The plaintiff aggrieved against this judgment and decree, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the trial Judge had gone wrong in holding that the sister and sister's son of Jai Ram were preferential heirs than the plaintiff, who was a ninth degree collateral of the deceased, as no specific issue was framed regarding this matter. The learned District Judge, therefore, set aside the findings of the trial sub-Judge on issue No. 1 and remanded the case under Order 41, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for fresh decision after framing proper issues in the case and affording opportunity for producing evidence to the parties. The findings of the trial court on issues Nos. 5 and 6 were affirmed. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that S. A. O. No. 30 of 1955 has been filed by the aliences-defendants in this Court.

(3.) AFTER the remand order, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: