SUNEHRI DEVI Vs. LACHHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. It has been found that the plaintiff- appellants have failed to prove that the suit property is ancestral in nature and the gift deed dated 8.7.1952 Ex. D.1/1 executed by Chet Ram in favour of defendant-respondent Lachhmi did not suffer from any legal lacuna sufficient for setting it aside. It has also been concurrently found that Smt. Lachhmi defendant-respondent had contracted Kareva marriage with the donor Chet Ram, deceased and consequential she has been held to be wife of Chet Ram. On the basis of the afore-mentioned findings, the plaintiff-appellants who are collateral of Chet Ram have been held to be not entitled to any share in these self-acquired property of Chet Ram.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are emerges from the judgments of both the Courts below are that plaintiff-appellants filed Civil suit No. 21 of 1997 on 15.10.1971 seeking possession of the suit land alleging that Chet Ram deceased son of Hansa was the owner of the agricultural land and the plaintiff- respondents being collaterals of Chet Ram deceased were entitled to succeed to his estate after his death as the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Chet Ram. It was further alleged taht gift deed dated 8.7.1952 gifting half share of the property of Chet Ram in favour of defendant-respondent was impermissible being without any consideration and legal necessity. It was further alleged that it was a sham transaction without previous consent and concurrence of the plaintiff-appellants who are the reversionaries of Chet Ram. According to Riwaje-am of Karnal District, no proprietor could alienate or gift his ancestral property during his life time to the detriment of his collateral and reversionary. The mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant- respondent with regard to the half share of the property was also challenged being illegal. It was also alleged that defendant-respondent was not the widow of Chet Ram.

(3.) IT is appropriate to mention that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff Mangal had died and is now represented by his legal representatives. On the basis of the copies of the pedigree table filed by the plaintiff- appellants Ex. P5 and P6 it was found that the plaintiff-appellants are the nearest collaterals of Chet Ram deceased whose estate is under dispute.