MUKHTIAR KAUR Vs. KARTAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Bahal Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. On his dying sonless somewhere in 1939, he was succeeded by his widow, Smt. Raj Kaur. On 3-5-1955 by a registered deed, Exhibit D. 1, she gifted the entire property in favour of her daughter Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh, defendant No. 1. This gift was challenged by Lal Singh and others, the collaterals of Bahal Singh deceased, by means of a suit for a declaration that the gift would not affect their reversionary rights. It was filed on 3-2-1956. It was originally dismissed by the trial Court on 28-2-1957, but on appeal it was decreed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, by means of his order dated 14-2-1958 in respect of the ancestral property. It was, however, dismissed regarding the non-ancestral property. Thereafter, on 27-2-1959, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur sold a part of this property by means of a registered deed in favour of Basant Singh and his brother, Chand Singh, defendants 2 and 3. On 26-6-1961, Smt. Raj Kaur made a registered will regarding the entire property which she had already gifted to her daughter Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur, in favour of Gurcharan Singh, Harcharan Singh and Harbans Singh, sons of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur. Thereafter, somewhere in July 1961, Smt. Raj Kaur died. On 4-9-1961 Smt. Kartar Kaur, wife of Bachan Singh, Smt. Chetan Kaur, wife of Kheta Singh and Smt. Baldev Kaur, wife of Surjit Singh the other three daughters of Smt. Baj Kaur, brought a suit for joint possession to the extent of 3/4th share of the property left by Smt. Raj Kaur against their sister, Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur and her transferees, defendants 2 and 3. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that the parties were governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession and Smt. Raj Kaur had no right to gift this property in favour of Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur alone and the same was ineffective against their rights and they were entitled to succeed to three-fourth share of the property left by their mother, while Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur to the remaining 1/4th. It was further alleged that the sale made by Smt. Mukhtiar Kaur in favour of defendants 2 and 3 in excess of her share in the property was not binding on them.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants, who controverted the allegations made by the plaintiffs and pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffs had no right to contest the gift in dispute, which was a valid one as Smt. Raj Kaur was the full owner of the disputed property. It was also pleaded that Smt. Raj Kaur had made a valid will on 26-6-1961.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed.