RAJMIT KAUR @ MEETO Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and decree dated 20.8.1987 passed by Sh. A.B.Singh Wasu, Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, now appellant, against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1987 passed by Sh. G.S. Saran, Sub Judge, IInd Class, Amritsar, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration against the defendants with the allegation that she is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the suit land mentioned in the heading of the plaint. In the plaint it was averred that Swaran Singh, father of the plaintiff, was the owner to the extent of 1/3 rd share of the suit land and after the death of her father, the plaintiff became owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/3 rd share. As the plaintiff was minor at the time of death of her father, the other co-sharers remained in possession of the suit land on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born at Sathiala on 1.1.1962 and for the education purposes she had gone to her maternal parents at village Sheron and thereafter she had gone to Bhilai in M.P. for study. The plaintiff had been coming to village Sathilala and she took her share on the produce from the other co-sharers. Now the plaintiff came to know that defendants in connivance with the revenue authorities got inheritance of Swaran Singh sanction in their names that they are only heirs of Swaran Singh. No notice was given to the plaintiff nor the defendants gave any address of the plaintiff to the revenue authorities. Therefore she appointed Bachan Singh her attorney, who filed the present suit. The plaintiff requested many times to the defendants to admit her claim, but they refused. Hence the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable in the present form as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. That the suit is time barred. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as she has no relationship with Swaran Singh and the plaintiff is stranger to the family. On merits also the defendants denied the plaintiff as daughter of Swaran Singh. It is stated that in fact Swaran Singh was unmarried and as such has left no heir. So far as the land is concerned, Gurdit Singh father of defendants and two deceased brothers, Dharam Singh and Swaran Singh had 1/4 th share each. Gurdit Singh had 1/4 th share and Wadhawa Singh had 1/2 share in the Khata owned and possessed by Gurdit Singh, Hardit Singh and Wadhawa Singh. Gurdit Singh father of the defendants had died five years ago leaving behind four sons. Swaran Singh and Dharam Singh had died. The property of Gurdit Singh was divided in 1/4 share and then the share of each son in the suit property is 1/16th. As Swaran Singh died without any heir, his property was inherited by his three brothers, Charan Singh, Dharam Singh and Kulwant Singh. Daram Singh also died and his property was divided amongst the remaining brothers, defendant. As the defendants are the owners of 1/4th share alongwith Hardit Singh and Wadhawa Singh. Wadhawa Singh also died and the property was inherited by Hardit Singh and Hardit Singh also died on 5.9.1968 and his property was inherited by Charan Singh and Kulwant Singh and Dharam Singh vide registered Will dated 17.6.1964. Therefore, Swaran Singh had only 1/16th share out of the suit land and defendants have become owners of the share of Swaran Singh by adverse possession. So, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating the stand taken in the plaint and denying and controverting the objections of defendants in the written statement.