GURMEET KAUR Vs. LACHHMAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff arising out of suit for declaration to the effect that defendant No. 1- Lachhman Kaur had no right to dispose of half share of the house in dispute and also land measuring 98 kanals 17 marlas situated in villages Hazara, Chander Sain and Kaniwal.

(2.) THE brief facts out of which the present appeal arises is that one Punjab Singh was owner of land situated in villages Hazara, Chander Sain and Kaniwal and three houses. After his death, the property was inherited in equal shares by his sons Bhan Singh and Massa Singh. After the death of Massa Singh, his widow-Lachhman Kaur, defendant No. 1, inherited half share of property falling to the share of Massa Singh. In the year 1953, Smt. Lachhman Kaur brought a suit for declaration that she was full owner of the property left by Massa Singh. The declaration was sought against Bhan Singh, brother of deceased- Massa Singh. The parties entered into a compromise in the said suit wherein Lachhman Kaur agreed to accept Rs. 400/- per year as maintenance and one house for her residence till her death. She relinquished her rights in two houses but was given right to retain the third house. The amount of maintenance was to be paid in two six monthly instalments. There was also a condition in the compromise that Smt. Lachhman Kaur will not alienate house and other property.

(3.) THE learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Bhan Singh made a statement Ex. P-7 in the previous suit wherein the parties have compromised. Smt. Lachhman Kaur had agreed to accept Rs. 400/- as maintenance and she would only have a right to reside in one house shown in the plan. But she would have no right to other property and would not have any power to alienate the house given to her and other property inherited by her. She was given right to seek partition of the property inherited by her from her husband in case maintenance was not paid to her. Lachhman Kaur accepted the above statement of Bhan Singh on 14.8.1954 vide Ex. P-8. On the basis of such compromise, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide Ex. P-4. The learned trial Court found that the defendant had agreed to accept Rs. 400/- as maintenance but continues to have right, title or interest in the property. She acquired right of residence and to seek partition of her half share in case maintenance was not paid to her according to compromise. The only rider was that Lachhman Kaur could not alienate the property in any manner by sale, mortgage or otherwise. Thus, the trial Court concluded that Lachhman Kaur continued to hold property for life term before the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act. It was held that defendant No. 1 on the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act being possessed of property become full owner in terms of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.