BABOO RAM Vs. BACHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case:-- KAPOORA ____________________|_____________________ | | Harnama Telu Ram | | | Shrimati Bachni | (Daughter) Plaintiff __________|___________________________________ | | | | Babco Ram Banarsi Dass Karta Ram Ramji Dass Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant No.1 No.2 No.3 No4 In 1950, Telu Ram died and his estate was mutated in favour of the sons of Harnama in 1952, even though the deceased had left a daughter Shrimati Bachni. That led to a suit in February, 1960, by Bachni for possession of the property in dispute which consists of agricultural land, 18 Kanals 131/2 Marlas in area, and one house. Her case was that Telu Ram, her father, had separated from his brother Harnama somewhere in 1932. The property in question had come to the share of her father and being his daughter, she was entitled to the same.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendants, who, apart from denying the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased, also pleaded that the property in question was coparcenary and by the rule of survivorship they were entitled to it. The plaintiff, being the daughter, could not get any share in the said property, she being not a member of the coparcenary. Another plea taken was that when Telu Ram died, he had occupancy rights in the land in dispute, which devolved on them alone under Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. So far as the house was concerned, it was alleged that it was also coparcenary property.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was the daughter of the deceased, but the property was joint Hindu Family property, and a part of it were occupancy rights, which, on the death of Telu Ram, devolved on the defendants under Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. They, therefore, became owners of the same under the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953.