ISHARI Vs. GAHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated October 14, 1969. In order to appreciate the facts, the following pedigree table would be helpful:-SANGAT _____________________|______________________ _ ___________|________ | | | Tabba Sunder Labhu ___________________|_________________ _ | | | | | Ishri Parshini Waryam Munshi | daughter widow (Issuelees) (issueless) Tulal (Plaintiff) (Defdt. 4) | _________________________|____ _ | | | Mulkh Bai Karnail Gahia (Defdt. 3) (Defdt. 2) (Defdt. 1 ).

(2.) LABHU was the last male holder of the propertv in dispute. He died in early fifties. On his death, his property was inherited by his widow Mst. Par-shinni as life estate. She became full owner of the property after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). She had not been heard of for the last more than seven years before the filing of the suit by the plaintiff and others who would have heard of her in case she was alive. Therefore, she should be presumed to have died. The plaintiff is the daugher of Sunder, the brother of Labhu, and thus is an heir to the estate of the husband of Mst. Parshinni. The defendants 1 to 3 are in illegal and wrongful possession of the propertv left by her. She instituted the suit for possession of the propertv in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that she was not the daughter of Sunder son of Shehzada, that the defendants were in possession of the propertv in dispute for more than 13 years after the death of Labhu and had become owner by adverse possession and that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit the property. On the pleadings of the Parties, the following issues were framed:-1. Whether the plaint has been pro-perly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? O. P. 2. Whether Parshinni widow of Labhu has not been heard of for the last seven years by the persons who would naturally have heard of her ? O. P.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is the heir of Mst. Parshinni ? O. P.