KRISHANA Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of RSA 959 of 2001 filed by Smt. Krishana and Payal, widow and daughter respectively of late Atam Parkash as also the cross-objections No. 17-C of 2001 filed by Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Nishu, also the widow and daughter respectively of said Atam Parkash.

(2.) THE dispute in the case is with respect to the estate of Atam Parkash (deceased) who died on 25.2.1988. It is not disputed that during his life time, Atam Parkash executed a registered Will dated 9.4.1982 (Ex P4). The case of the plaintiffs - Smt. Krishna and Ms. Payal is that they are the widow and daughter respectively of aforesaid deceased Atam Parkash. The suit was filed by them for declaration to the effect that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased and are entitled to inherit his estate (moveable and immoveable) and that the defendants had nothing to do with the estate of the deceased. It was alleged that Smt. Shanti Devi (defendant No. 1) is the mother of the deceased and Smt. Raj Kumari (defendant No. 2) and Smt. Nishu (defendant No. 3) are the alleged widow and daughter respectively of deceased Atam Parkash. It is further stated that Atam Parkash was the owner in possession of two houses i.e. House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat, and another house No. 61, 4 Marlas, Sonepat. The second house was sold by deceased Atam Parkash during his life time and at the time of his demise, he was in possession of House No. 6- A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat along with the plaintiffs who used to reside with them. The possession of the said house, it was stated, since the date of marriage of Smt. Krishna (plaintiff No. 1) with Atam Parkash, was that of plaintiff No. 1 and Atam Parkash and since the birth of Ms. Payal (plaintiff No. 2), she has also been residing in the said house. After the demise of Atam Parkash - husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2, they were in possession of the same. It is further stated that Smt. Krishna was married with Atam Parkash deceased on 16.6.1970 at Arya Samaj, Anar Kali Mandir Marg, New Delhi as per Hindu rites. It is since 16.6.1990 that plaintiff No. 1 had been residing with Atam Parkash and had been discharging her duties as his wife. Plaintiff No. 2 was born on 13.10.1972 and has been residing with her parents since then. It is further stated that Atam Parkash executed a legal and valid Will dated 9.4.1982 in sound and disposing mind bequeathing all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. The said Will, it is sated, is the outcome of sound and disposing mind of Atam Parkash who was in full knowledge that he was a patient of high blood pressure and, therefore, executed his Will so as to avoid any complications after his death. The deceased clearly mentioned in the Will that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were residing separately for the last more than 12 years at the time of execution of the said Will and that they were sufficiently compensated by him and that they were not entitled to inherit any property (moveable and immoveable) left by him (Atam Parkash) after his death.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 was made party to the said petition and general public also was given due notice of the same. Defendant No. 1 appeared through her counsel and ultimately succession certificate was awarded by the District Judge on 7.10.1988 in respect of the property as is mentioned in the order that was passed. Later on, Smt. Shanti Devi (defendant No. 1) filed certain objections which lingered on for a number of years and thereafter she put up defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as parties. It is further stated that on 12.6.1993, statements were made by the parties that the order was subject to the decision of the Civil Court. In short, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are exclusive owners of property i.e. House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat and are also entitled to the amount to be paid by the department such as gratuity, provident fund, pension, ex-gratia grant, compensation amounts with regard to earned leave i.e. leave encashment, etc. and that the defendants had nothing to do with the same. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement in which it was stated that plaintiff No. 1 has wrongly been mentioned as the widow of Atam Parkash and plaintiff No. 2 as daughter of Atam Parkash. Besides, defendant No. 2 it is alleged has wrongly been stated to be the alleged widow of Atam Parkash and in fact she is the widow of Atam Parkash. Besides, defendant No. 3 is the daughter of Atam Parkash. It is, however, admitted that Atam Parkash was an employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board and was working as UDC at the time of his death. The date of death is also admitted. However, it is stated that it is incorrect to say that the plaintiffs are the LRs. of deceased Atam Parkash. In fact, defendant No. 1 is the mother, defendant No. 2 is the legally wedded wife and defendant No. 3 is the real daughter of deceased Atam Parkash. It is also admitted that Atam Parkash was the owner in possession of House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat and the other house which was sold by the deceased during his life time. However, it is stated that the plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest with the properties of Atam Parkash deceased and in this way they were not in possession of House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat. It is stated that it is absolutely incorrect to say that any marriage was solemnized between plaintiff No. 1 and deceased Atam Parkash. It is further incorrect to state that plaintiff No. 2 is the child born out of the wedlock between deceased Atam Parkash and plaintiff No. 1. In fact, the plaintiffs are stated to have taken possession of the property bearing House No. 6-A, Khanna Colony, Sonepat, after the death of Atam Parkash, illegally and wrongly. In fact, the defendants were living in the aforesaid house during the life time of Atam Parkash and they are the legal owners of the abovesaid property.