NANHI BAI Vs. SHEO DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are widow, son and daughters of Kanhiya Lal, had filed this suit against the present appellant Nanhi Bai for possession of the suit land, measuring 16 kanals 17 Marlas, situated in village Khaira, District Mohindergarh. Respondent No. 5 Sumitra who is also daughter of Kanhiya Lal was made a proforma defendant No. 2 in the suit. Respondent No. 6 Phula son of Manohar Lal was also made a proforma party as defendant No. 3, but, in this appeal, the appellant gave him up. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff and proforma defendants 2 and 3 were owners of this land. Nanhi Bai took illegal possession of it about 4 or 5 years prior to the filing of the suit. Hence, the suit.

(2.) Nanhi Bai defendant contested the suit. She denied the ownership of plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 over the suit land and pleaded that Sheo Bai, plaintiff No. 1 had left her husband, Kanhiya Lal and gone to Muzaffarnagar. After the death of Kanhiya Lal, Sheo Bai performed Kareva with somebody and became a woman of easy virtue. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendant No. 2 Sumitra were born long after the death of Kanhiya Lal. Chander Bhan succeeded to the estate of Kanhiya Lal and he executed a will in her (Nanhi Bai's) favour on August 6, 1954. Chander Bhan also died in 1956 and after his death, she took possession over the suit land under the will. Since then, her possession is adverse to that of the plaintiffs and she has become its owner. She also took certain other pleas as will be clear from the following issues framed by the learned trial Court :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the document Ex. D-2 is a will executed by Chander Bhan in favour of Nanhi Bai and the learned Courts below erred in holding that this document did not amount to a will. Before I take up the above argument, I may mention here that the dispute between the parties is about the inheritance of Kanhiya Lal who had admittedly 1/3rd share in the suit land. Kanhiya Lal died on September 12, 1949, vide copy of death entry, Ex. P-10. Both the learned Courts below have held that Sheo Bai plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of the said Kanhiya Lal, while plaintiff No. 2 Anand Parkash is his son and Hem Lata and Shanti, plaintiffs 3 and 4 respectively and the proforma defendant No. 2 Sumitra were his daughters. Mutation Ex. P-8 was also sanctioned in their favour, as the heirs of Kanhiya Lal, in 1968. (It appears that the mutation was not entered and sanctioned earlier, because these heirs of Kanhiya Lal were residing in Muzaffarnagar.) It has also been held that Sheo Bai did not perform Kareva after the death of Kanhiya Lal. These findings were not challenged before me. Chander Bhan son of Menna Ram, who is said to have executed the alleged will Ex. D-2 was not a co-sharer in the suit land. From the pedigree table Ex. 29, it appears that Chander Bhan son of Meena Ram, was the nearest male collateral of Kanhiya Lal who was alive at the time of latter's death. According to Nanhi Bai, Chander Bhan inherited the estate of Kanhiya Lal. However, as Kanhiya Lal did not die heirless, his property could not go to the said Chander Bhan. Therefore, even if it is held that the document, Ex. D-2 is a will, Nanhi Bai did not get any interest under the same in the estate of Kanhiya Lal.