GURMEL SINGH Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) The plaintiff Harbans Kaur and Jagir Kaur are daughters of Dharam Singh (deceased) from his first wife Nand Kaur. Tej Kaur-defendant was the second wife of Dharam Singh. Dharam Singh executed a Tamliknama of land measuring 19B, 17B, 4B as per details given in para No. 2 of the plaint, in favour of Shrimati Tej Kaur, his second wife. This Tamliknama was executed and registered on 11.1.1946. As per this deed, Tej Kaur had only a life estate in the land subject matter of Tamliknama i.e. she could enjoy fruits of land during her life time. On the death of Dharam Singh, mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Harbans Kaur and Jagir Kaur on the basis of registered Will dated 12.10.1962. It is further averred that Tej Kaur, in complete violation of the terms and conditions of Tamliknama, sold 1/5 share of the land, as detailed in the plaint, vide sale deed dated 1.7.1974 for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- to Gurmel Singh and Jarnail Singh- defendants. Tej Kaur also alienated land measuring 2B-0B-17B i.e. 1/4 share for Rs. 16,000/- in favour of Jewan Singh vide sale deed dated 1.7.1974. Shrimati Tej Kaur executed another sale deed in respect of a house situate in village Majara tehsil and district Ludhiana. All these alienations have been challenged by the plaintiff being contrary to the provisions of gift/Tamliknama dated 11.1.1946. The plaintiff further seeks declaration that these sales do not bind the right of the plaintiff in any manner.

(3.) The defendants put in appearance and filed written statements controverting the various averments made in the plaint. It was specifically pleaded that Dharam Singh transferred the land to Shrimati Tej Kaur vide gift deed dated 11.1.1946 and on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Tej Kaur became full owner of the property; and as such had a right to dispose of the same without any encumbrance. The denfendants further pleaded that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and as such the sales in their favour are protected.