MANGO Vs. JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties to this appeal are the real sisters being the daughters of Kundan singh of village Burj Hari who left behind 152 Kanals 11 Marlas of agricultural land situated in that village. It was taken hold of by his widow Smt. Dharam Kaur because of a will executed in her favour by Kundan Singh on 22nd May, 1954. Later on Smt. Dharam Kaur bequeathed the entire property to the appellant Smt. Mango (the third daughter) to the exclusion of her other two daughters Smt. Joginder Kaur and Smt. Sammu by means of the will Exhibit D. I dated 25th May, 1964. After her death which took place on 5th December, 1964 the two daughters smt. Joginder Kaur and Smt. Sammu brought the suit claiming the possession of their 2/3rd share out of 152 Karnals 11 Marlas of land situated in Burj Hari that had been left behind by their mother. The plaintiff-respondents claimed that under the will dated 22nd May, 1954 Smt. Dharam Kaur got only a limited estate for her lifetime and being not the full owner thereof had no right to execute any will in favour of Smt. Mango and thus they were entitled to inherit the estate of their mother in equal shares along with Smt. Mango. Contesting this suit Smt. Mango asserted that by means of the will executed by Kundan Singh in favour of Smt. Dharam Kaur she (Dharam Kaur) had become the absolute owner of the property of her husband and was thus competent to bequeath it to the defendant-appellant to the exclusion of her other daughters.

(2.) EXECUTION of both the wills has been held to be proved and this fact is no longer in dispute. The trial Court found that the will made in favour of Smt. Dharam Kaur conferred on her not the life estate but full interest in the property bequeathed to her. Accordingly, he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. In appeal the learned District judge however, took a different view of the matter and came to the conclusion that under the will of Kundan Singh Smt. Dharam Kaur obtained only a life estate and, accordingly, she was not competent to bequeath the property that she had received from her husband by making a will in favour of Smt. Mango one of her three daughters. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim for joint possession of 2/3rd share of the property left by their mother was decreed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It is against this decree that Smt. Mango has come up in second appeal.

(3.) AS has been noticed earlier, the execution of both the wills Exhibits PW 2/b and d. 1 has been held to be proved by both the Courts below. The controversy before me has been confined only to the interpretation of the will Exhibit PW 2/b.