KAKI Vs. MIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for joint possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint and also for recovery of mesne profits from the defendants upon the basis of the pleadings set out in the plaint. The brief facts are that one Mst. Ram Kaur widow of Mahna Singh became the owner to the extent of 608/974 share in the land measuring 68 Kanals and 13 Marlas and 606/973 in the land measuring 81 Kanals 18 Marlas, as her husband Mahna Singh had died. She also died on 11.3.1975 and the said share was inherited by the plaintiff-appellant and that the mutation No. 9675 dated 30.3.1976 was sanctioned accordingly.

(2.) THE defendant-respondents have not accepted the ownership of the plaintiff-appellant as heir of Mst. Ram Kaur and resultantly, did not deliver possession of the suit land to the extent of the share inherited by her. Since the defendants were in possession, they continued to cultivate the share of the plaintiff-appellant and that no share had ever been given to her accordingly, as such, the mesne profits have been claimed at the rate of Rs. 750/-. Since the right had not been recognised she brought the present suit against the defendant-respondent for the appropriate relief.

(3.) UPON the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and subsequently, additional issues had also been framed by the trial Court vide order dated 14.2.1978. The parties led respective documentary and ocular evidence in support of their pleas/pleadings and also to prove the issues, the onus of which had been lasted upon them. The trial Court returned a finding against the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that she is not the owner of the land in dispute and is therefore, not entitled to decree for joint possession. However, the finding on issue No. 6 has been returned in favour of the defendants to the effect that they have become owners of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession for more than 12 years. It has also been held that the right of redemption in respect of the land mortgaged with Ram Singh and Chhaju Singh had been lost on account of limitation and that finding has been returned in favour of the defendants. As a sequel thereto and in view of the finding returned upon issue No. 6 it has been held that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1134 and 1229 is in possession of defendants as owners. Similarly, the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1127, 1128, 1132, 2909 and 3405 had been mortgaged by Mahna Singh with Hazara Singh since 9.10.1980 Bk. and that the defendants after having come into possession of the said land have become the owners accordingly. Similar is the finding returned in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1133. It has also been held that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. The issue No. 5 pertaining to the question of limitation has been found against the plaintiff-appellant. The trial Court has further returned finding upon issue No. 7 and has held that the parties are Jats and are therefore, governed by the customs in the matter of succession. Thus, after the death of Mahna Singh, his wife Mst. Ram Kaur had re-married with some stranger, therefore, under the customary law, the remarriage resulted in forfeiture of her life interest and that the land reverted to the next reversioner who became entitled to succeed to the property of the last male holder i.e. Mahna Singh. So far as, issue in respect of the property being ancestral is concerned, upon concession of the counsel for the plaintiff, it has been held that the property is ancestral. Consequently, issue No. 1-A stood decided in favour of the defendant-respondents. It has also been held that the property was succeeded by the plaintiff after the death of Mahna Singh only till her marriage and that the finding in respect of issue in respect of the marriage of the plaintiff-respondent has also been held in favour of the defendant by holding that the plaintiff got married in the year 1948. Resultantly, in view of the findings returned by the trial Court upon various issues in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1979.