TIKKAM LAL BATTA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing R.S.A. No. 2857 of 1980 and R.S.A. No. 2958 of 1980, as both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below. Whereas R.S.A. No. 2857 of 1980 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Chanan Devi, R.S.A. No. 2958 of 1980 has been filed by defendants No. 13, 11 and 15.

(2.) Chanan Devi, plaintiff, filed suit for joint possession claiming 2/9th share in the suit land measuring 203 kanals, 2/27th share in the land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas, I/18th share in the land of Khata No. 18/42 to 52 and 2/9th share in khasra No. 936/(6-18). It was claimed by her that the aforesaid lands were originally owned by Shrirnati Bhagwanti Devi widow of Dewan Chand son of Bishan Dass. Aforesaid Bhagwanti had died intestate leaving no issue behind. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the property left behind by Shrirnati Bhagwanti was to revert back to defendants namely. Jamna Dass, Harkishan Dass and Labhu Ram. The plaintiff claimed that accordingly the property was to revert back in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd to the branch of Labhu Ram, 1/3rd to the branch of Harkishan and 1/3rd to the branch of Jamna Dass who were real brothers of Bishan Dass, father of Dewan Chand. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed that the mutation of inheritance of Bhagwanti should have been entered and decided accordingly. Chanan Devi, plaintiff, was the daughter of Labhu Ram. Accordingly, she claimed that she was entitled to her 1/3rd share out of 1 /3rd share to the branch of Labhu Ram, i.e. 1/9th share from the total estate left behind by Bhagwanti. She further pleaded that at the time of mutation, the existence of the plaintiff Chanan Devi and her sister Pritam Devi was not disclosed and, therefore, the property was mutated wrongly. On that basis , the plaintiff filed the suit for joint possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 4 and 14 only. The aforesaid defendants admitted the relationship between the parties. The ownership of Bhagwanti was also not denied. However, it was disputed that Smt. Bhagwanti had died intestate. According to the aforesaid defendants Shrimati Bhagwanti had executed a Will on August, 13, 1966 whereby she had bequeathed her entire property in favour of Ashok Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Ram Murti. On that basis , the defendants claimed that plaintiff had no right or interest in the property left behind by Shrimati Bhagwanti.