RAJ RANI Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS Radhey Sham, Rajinder Nath Sharma and Suridner Nath Sharma are the sons and Smt. Raj Rani is the daughter of Chander Bhan who died on 10. 2. 1979. His wife pre-deceased him somewhere in the year 1956. He owned and possessed 15/16 share in the agricultural land fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs Filed Civil Suit No. 555/1986 on 18. 7. 1983 for a decree of declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of 3/4th + 3/16th = 15/16th share in suit land bearing khewat No. 2744, khatauni No. 3369, Killa Nos; 3802/1702, measuring 2 Bighas 3 Biswas situated within the revenue estate of Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, against their sister the defendant. It was pleaded that they constituted a joint Hindu family with their father Chander Bhan. They were Brahamin by caste and governed by Hindu Law in the matters of alienation in succession and Chander Bhan was karta of Joint Hindu Family Property and the plaintiff being coparceners had interest in the suit land by virtue of their birth and survivorship. On the death of Chander Bhan they being coparceners become owners of 15/16 share in the property left by him and the defendant was entitled to only l/6th share according to Hindu Succession Act. The Municipal limits of Gurgaon Municipal Committee having been enlarged the land in dispute has ceased to be agricultural land. It was further pleaded in the suit that Chander Bhan in his life time had divided the suit land in four equal shares thereby giving l/4th share each to the plaintiffs whereas remaining l/4th share was retained by him and thence forth the plaintiffs are owners in possession of their respective shares. Mutation No. 7658 dated 16. 7. 1980 with regard to the inheritance of Chander Bhan in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant in equal shares was illegal and void.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant. She denied everything under the son. Parties fought the litigation on the following issues :1. Whether the plaintiff and their father constituted a joint Hindu Family? OPP

(3.) IT is that judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has been appealed against by the defendants and which requires my examination of its sustainability.