GURU DATT Vs. LEKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') by the plaintiff-appellants is as to 'whether the provisions of Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Act') would apply to the facts of the instant case. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that Ram Kali predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- appellants had become absolute owner of the suit property which was recognised by the judgment Ex.OY. The findings recorded in the judgment Ex.OY were not challenged and had attained finality. the plaintiff-appellants have been held to be bound by the same. Therefore, the view taken by the Courts below is that S. 14(1) of the Act would govern the case by considering Ram Kali to be the absolute owner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant appeal may first be noticed. To understand the controversy between the parties, the following pedigree table would be helpful :- See table below

(3.) DEFENDANTS -respondents 1 to 7 took the plea that the plaintiff-appellants have not been in possession and suit for declaration, therefore, was to maintainable. It has been claimed that the instant suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. The relationship of the plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondents 12 to 14 with Ram Kali as asserted in the plaint has been disputed and the mutation in favour of Ralla Ram has been denied. In the alternative, it is claimed that they did not create any title in favour of Ralla Ram. The decree dated 14.4.1947 passed in the suit filed by Ram Kali has been admitted but the terms of the compromise have been disputed. It is claimed that she had been the absolute owner of the property by operation of S. 14(1) of the Act. In respect of the land mentioned in head-note (C) of the plaint, it has been alleged that defendant-respondents 2 to 4 were owners in possession on the basis of a valid gift deed executed by Ram Kali in their favour and plaintiff-appellants were estopped from challenging the same. It was further claimed that Ram Kali also executed a will dated 9.12.1974 in favour of defendant-respondents 1 to 7 and on that basis mutation has been rightly sanctioned in their favour.