JASJIT SINGH Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge.

(2.) Facts first: Fateh Singh was the common ancestor. He had three sons Partap Singh Tara Singh and Dalip Singh. Partap Singh died leaving behind his son Hardial Singh. Dalip Singh died leaving behind Chater Kaur, his widow and two daughters, namely, Harcaharan Kuar alias Charanjit Kaur and Balbir Kaur. Dalip Singh had executed a will on Oct. 16, 1937 alienating a part of his property in favour of his daughters. On Nov. 26, 1945, Dalip Singh executed another will in favour of his wife regarding the disputed property. In 1953, Hardial Singh son of Partap Singh filed a suit for declaration that Dalip Singh could not alienate the property under wills, dated Oct. 16, 1937 and Nov. 26, 1945. The trial Court decreed the suit on 10/05/1954. The legatees, namely, Chatar Kuar, Harcharan Kaur alias Charanjit Kuar and Balbir Kaur challenged the judgment and decree in appeal. At the appellate stage, the parties to the lis arrived at a compromise. The terms of the compromise read thus:-

(3.) The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. On 13/07/1976, Chatar Kaur executed a will bequeathing the land to her daughter, Smt. Charanjit Kuar given to her under the compromise. Hardial Singh filed a suit for possession of. 1/2 share and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants respondents from alienating the property in any manner or cutting or removing the trees standing thereon. He asserted that the property was a part of Cis-Sutlej Jagir. It was held by his grand-father, Shri Fateh Singh, that the male holder had only life estate in the property and they could not alienate the same or any part thereof. After the death of the male holder, it was to pass on next male holder. The female heir has only a right of maintenance. Chatar Kaur, mother of the defendant / respondent (hereinafter, the defendant) was given the property for life in lieu of maintenance under the civil court decree and she has no right to alienate the same in any manner. The will executed by Smt. Chatar Kaur in favour of the defendant was invalid.