JANG BAHADUR Vs. BHAGIRTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A declaratory civil suit with the consequential relief of possession (bearing Civil Suit No. 172/81) was filed by Bhagirthi plaintiff (daughter of Dhan Singh) in respect of the land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint, against Jang Bahadur etc. defendants. The relief claimed in the last para of the plaint, however, was only for a decree for possession to the extent of 1/4th share of the suit land against the defendants as the judgment and decree passed in suit No. 232 of 1972 were null and void and, therefore, the same did not confer any title on defendants No. 1 to 5 in respect of the estate of Dhan Singh deceased, though in para No. 12 of the plaint, reference to a testamentary document executed by Shri. Dhan Singh deceased in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 with regard to the suit land was also made.

(2.) RELATIONSHIP between the parties, inter se, as detailed in para No. 2 of the plaint, is as under :- See Table Below (Anokhi, defendant No. 4, is wife of Dalip Singh defendant No. 3 and Krishna, defendant No. 5, is wife of late Teg Singh).

(3.) THE defendants contested the suit. They denied the relationship of Bhagirthi plaintiff with Dhan Singh and also the ancestral nature of suit land. According to them, parties are governed by agricultural custom, according to which Dhan Singh was within his rights to give his property to defendants No. 1 to 5, in lieu of the services rendered by them. It was denied that the consent decree was obtained by playing a fraud on Dhan Singh. The latter was a big landlord and apprehending that as per the law prevailing at that time, his land holding may be reduced to 10 acres, he entered into a family partition with his family members and later suffered the impugned decree (dated 30.5.1972) on the basis thereof, in a suit filed against him, by Dalip Singh etc. It was further pleaded that earlier too, the plaintiff had filed a similar suit which was dismissed. Objections regarding limitation, maintainability of the suit in the form in which it was filed, and non- fixation of proper Court fee were also taken up.