MAN KAUR ALIAS PANNA Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for a declaration to the effect that they are owners of the suit land left by Hazara Singh and that defendants 1 to 4 have no right or interest in the same and mutation No. 429 dated 28-7-1965 in their favour was illegal and not binding upon them. Relief of possession was also sought in this suit. It was averred in the plaint that the land measuring 352 kanals 12 marlas was in the joint ownership and possession of defendants 5 to 9 and Hazara Singh, father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No. 3. It was further averred that Hazara Singh was owner of 1/4th share in the suit land and such, plaintiff No. 1 as son, plaintiff No. 2 as daughter and plaintiff No. 3 as widow of Hazara Singh were entitled to inherit his estate. Defendants No. 1 to 3 had no relationship with Hazara Singh (deceased). They were Mohammedans and defendant No. 1 was the wife of one Doggar; whereas defendant No. 2 was his son and defendent No. 3 was his daughter. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants who contested the suit, it was denied that defendants 1 to 3 were related to Doggar or that defendant No. 1 was his widow and defendants 2 and 3 his children. It was also denied that they were Mohammedans. It was conceded that Hazara Singh was the owner of the suit land and he died about 31 years before the filing of the suit. It was claimed that defendants 1 to 3 are the widow, son and daughter of Hazara Singh and as such, the mutation had been effected correctly in their names. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

(2.) The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were related to Hazara Singh in the sense that Smt. Ishar Kaur was his widow, Darshan Singh his son and Swarno his daughter. The trial Court further held that Smt. Mahan Kaur defendant was the widow of Hazara Singh; Viro and Dara Singh were his daughter and son respectively. Accordingly, the trial Court granted the plaintiffs a declaration that they were the heirs to the estate of Hazara Singh to the extent of one-half share and the mutation was rightly sanctioned. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the learned District Judge, Amritsar, who reversed the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge on these issues. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Smt. Mahan Kaur was not the widow of Hazara Singh; nor was it proved that Viro was his daughter and Darshan Singh was his son. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration that they are the sole-heirs of Hazara Singh (deceased). Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of the overwhelming evidence, documentary as well as oral, it has been amply proved that Smt. Mahan Kaur was living with Hazara Singh (deceased) for the last about 45 years. According to the learned counsel, this long cohabitation as husband and wife does raise a presumption that they were legally married and the learned lower appellate Court has erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court in this respect. In support of this contention, a reference was made to Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and others, 1929 AIR(PC) 135; Mal Singh and another v. Ram Kaur, 1973 AIR(P&H) 124 and Bira Jena v. Tauli Dei and another, 1972 AIR(Ori) 143