TOKHA Vs. SAMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal, a short pedigree table may be set down:-CHET RAM (Occupancy tenant: died 1909)__________________________________|_________________________________ _ | | Mst. Rupan (widow) Mst. Sama (widow) | | Tokha Mst. Patori (adopted son) (daughter) plaintiff. | Ganpat (daughter's son)

(3.) ON the death of Chet Ram, there was a dispute between his two widows and his adopted son Tokha. This dispute was settled by a compromise before the Revenue authorities. The compromise was that the widows will make a statement before the revenue officer and get the mutation sanctioned in all the three villages in which the land will be entered as one-third, one-third and one-third in the names of the adopted son and the two widows. In case they do not make such a statement, then the land in village Sheikhupura will remain in possession of the adopted son and the land in villages Kheowali and Phaggu would remain in possession of the two widows. Steps were taken to get the mutation entered but they failed. The result was that the adopted son remained in possession of the land in Sheikhupura and the two widows remained in possession of the land in the two remaining villages. It was also provided in the compromise that on the death of any one of the widows, the land left by her will be mutated half and half between the adopted son and the surviving widow. However, on the death of Rupan, which took place in 1932, this clause of the compromise was not given effect to and in village Kheowali her share of the land was mutated in the name of Mst. Sama and half of it was not mutated in the name of Tokha as provided in the compromise. It may be mentioned that Tokha took no steps to enforce the compromise within 12 years of the death of Mst. Rupan. In the year 1957, Mst. Sama gifted the land in village Kheowali to her daughter Mst. Patori. This led to the present suit by Tokha to challenge the gift. A number of pleas were advanced by Tokha but without success and he has failed in the trial Court as well as in the lower appellate Court. He has now come up in second appeal to this Court.