KANSI (DEAD) Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.1983. Both the parties being aggrieved against the said decree, preferred separate appeals. First appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the defendants having been accepted, the suit was dismissed, vide a decree dated 23.01.1985. This is how, plaintiffs are before this court, in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN short, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they claimed a declaration that they were the sole owners of land measuring 17 kanal 15 marla, comprised in specific khasra numbers, as depicted in para 12 of the plaint, and for possession thereof. It was averred that plaintiff No.2 i.e. Kansi, was the General Attorney of Smt. Bansi i.e. plaintiff No.1, who died during the pendency of the suit, and thus Parduman Singh i.e. plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.8 to 11 happened to be her legal representatives. It was maintained that Banta Singh son of Nihal Singh was the original owner of the suit land and he died leaving behind Smt. Kansi and Smt. Bansi i.e. his daughters and Smt. Achhari (now deceased) as his widow. Therefore, estate of Banta Singh was inherited by his two daughters and his widow. Defendants No.1 to 6 were neither related to deceased Banta Singh nor to Gurcharan Singh, who was purported to be the adopted son of Banta Singh. Parties to the lis were governed by Hindu Law and thus, Gurcharan Singh could not be adopted. Smt. Achhari, widow of Banta Singh, died about 6/7 years back and was survived by her two daughters. Suit land was given for cultivation to defendant No.7, about four years back, pursuant to an oral lease. However, subsequently he started denying the ownership of the plaintiffs and thus, his possession over the suit land was of a trespasser. Since defendants refused to acknowledge the claim of the plaintiffs, thus, the suit.

(3.) IN defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that Banta Singh was owner to the extent of 1/2 share of the suit land and Gurcharan Singh was his adopted son. Even an adoption deed dated 07.12.1953, was executed by Banta Singh in favour of Gurcharan Singh. As Banta Singh died prior to the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and was governed by Customary Law in the matter of adoption and succession, he was succeeded by his only adopted son, namely, Gurcharan Singh. As defendants No.1 to 6 happened to be the sons and widow of Gurcharan Singh, after his death, they succeeded to his estate. And thus, they were owners of the suit property. Further, the adoption deed also amounts to a will in favour of deceased Gurcharan Singh. It was denied that plaintiffs ever leased out the suit land to defendant No.7 for cultivation. In fact, out of the suit land khasra Nos.87/24/1(8 -0) and 94/4/2(4 -16) were possessed by defendants No.1 to 6. And khasra No.25/1(4 -16) was in possession of Manjit Singh etc.