SHEONA Vs. MARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment being passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 63 of 1992, shall dispose of, besides Regular Second Appeal No. 63 of 1992, Regular Second Appeal No. 253 of 1992 also, as both these appeals are directed against common judgment and decree dated 30.09.1987 and involve common questions of fact and law.

(2.) Khema had three sons named Khubi, Nandu and Harjas. Khubi had a son named Jhunda, father of Jug Lal. Nandu had one son named Ami Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 2 to 13, while Harjas had a son named Sheo Chand, defendant No. 1. Plaintiff, Sheona, claiming herself to be daughter of Jug Lal and Maro, brought Civil Suit No. 286 of 22.02.1983 for declaration to the effect that she was owner of (i) agricultural land measuring 58 kanals 10 marlas out of land measuring 82 kanals 18 marlas comprised in khewat No. 200 khatauni No. 362 and land measuring 87 kanals 09 marlas comprised in khewat No. 201, khatauni No. 363, per Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 (Exhibit P2), situated in the revenue estate of village Dalamwala, Tehsil and District Jind; (ii) one third share in agricultural land measuring 48 kanals 09 marlas comprised in khewat No. 26, khatauni No. 36, as per jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (Exhibit P8), situated in revenue estate of village Khunga; and (iii) one third share in land measuring 49 kanals 15 marlas comprised in khewat No. 131, khatauni No. 146, as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Exhibit P9) situated in revenue estate of village Shri Rag Khera, Tehsil and District Jind, and for possession thereof, by alleging that after death of her father, Jug Lal, her mother, Maro, had contracted karewa marriage with Giani son of defendant Sheo Chand but the defendants, by concealing the factum of her birth from the marital union of Jug Lal and Maro, got mutation No. 110 dated 04.06.1956 (Exhibit P1), in respect of the land in dispute, sanctioned in their favour but continued paying batai to her till four months before institution of the suit.

(3.) Defendants No. 2 to 10 and 12 contested plaintiff's claim that she was daughter of Jug Lal and Maro, admitted their relationship with Jug Lal, and pleaded preliminary objections to say that the suit was not maintainable, it was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and improper valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, besides being barred by time, and the plaintiff lacked locus standi and was estopped by her own acts and conduct and acquiescence from maintaining the suit.