RAM RAKHI Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRIMATI Ram Rakhi, the plaintiff-appellant, filed this suit for possession of three rooms on the basis of her title. Achhru Mal was admittedly owner of the house in dispute. He died about 40 years ago. His son Kaka Ram had predeceased him leaving a widow by the name of Durga Devi and a daughter by the name of Ram Rakhi-plaintiff-appellant. Durga Devi continued residing in a portion of the house in dispute till her death which took place on 13th Dec. , 1964. Her daughter Shrimati Ram Rakhi is married at Jullundur and she had been residing with her husband ever since her marriage. She mentioned in the plaint that after the death of Achhru Mal, his property was inherited by his predeceased son's widow Shrimati Durga Devi along with the other surviving son and grand-sons of Achhru Mal, that she remained in possession of the property as an heir and became its absolute owner due to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. in the alternative, it was pleaded in the plaint that Shrimati Durga Devi was in possession of the disputed portion of the house in lieu of her right of residence and maintenance and thus she became full owner of this property due to the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. The suit was resisted on behalf of the defendant-respondents. They pleaded that Shrimati Durga Devi never became full owner of the portion in dispute and, therefore the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the same. It was further pleaded that Achhru Mal formed a joint Hindu family along with his four sons and this house was the property of that joint family. After the death of Achhru Mal, who was the manager and Karta of the joint Hindu family, the property passed on to the remaining coparceners by survivorship. Shrimati Durga Devi was not a coparcener and, therefore, she did not get any proprietary right in the house in dispute. It was not disputed that Shrimati Durga Devi had been residing in the disputed house till her death but it was contended that she used to live in that house as a female along with other ladies belonging to that family. It was not admitted that Durga Devi had remained in exclusive possession of the disputed portion and it was further contended that she was not residing in any portion of the disputed house as an owner, therefore, her right could not be enlarged by S. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

(2.) ON the said pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff's mother was ever in possession of the property in the suit ? 2. Whether the property of Achhru Mal devolved by survivorship on the surviving coparceners ?

(3.) WHETHER Achhru Mal was a member of the joint Hindu family with the defendants. If so to what effect ?