HARI RAM Vs. TARSEM LAL PASSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.1986 passed by the first appellate court, whereby after reversing the judgment of the trial court, suit for possession filed by plaintiff Tarsem Lal Passey (respondent No.1 herein) regarding the house in question has been decreed, and the defendants have been restrained from demolishing any part of the said house.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the property in question is a house situated in Patiala, which was owned by one Gursaran Dass Duggal. He was having only one daughter. Plaintiff Tarsem Lal Passey is the son of daughter of said Gursaran Dass Duggal. On 2.1.1943, when Gursaran Dass Duggal became old and was not keeping good health, he executed a registered Will (Ex.P1) in favour of his wife Smt. Des Rani. According to the terms of the Will, on the demise of Gursaran Dass Duggal, the house in question was to devolve upon Smt. Des Rani. It was stated that she will be limited owner of the said house during her life time without any right of alienation; and after her death, the house would devolve upon plaintiff Tarsem Lal Passey. It is the undisputed position that Gursaran Dass Duggal died before coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is also undisputed fact that after his death, his wife Smt. Des Rani exclusively came into possession of the said house.

(3.) Subsequently, in the year 1964, Smt. Des Rani, being absolute owner of the house in question, gifted the same in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 (appellants herein) vide registered gift deed dated 26.4.1964 (Ex.D1), who rented out the house to defendants No.3 and 4. Thereafter, she died and in the year 1983, Tarsem Lal Passey filed the present suit for possession.