DEVINDER KAUR Vs. JATINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the judgments and decrees dtd. 22/3/2017 and 26/10/2018 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellants herein filed a suit for declaration that they were owners and in possession of 73/5020 share in land measuring 8 kanals 17 marlas 5 sarsahi as fully described in the plaint situated in the revenue estate of Sangrur-A, Tehsil and District Sangrur and 1/8th share in land measuring 1 bigha 19 biswas as fully described in the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Ramgarh Sibian, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana, on the basis of natural succession being Class-I legal heirs of deceased Amar Chand son of Bhag Ram. Challenge was also laid to the mutation Nos. 34582 and 2091 whereby the inheritance of Amar Chand son of Bhag Ram sanctioned in favour of the defendant-respondents as being wrong, illegal, null and void as well as for permanent injunction. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellants in the plaint was that Amar Chand was married to one Viran Devi and they were divorced vide judgment and decree dtd. 12/4/1980. Thereafter, Amar Chand married the plaintiff-appellant No.1 and they cohabited with each other as husband and wife. Amar Chand subsequently died leaving behind the plaintiff- appellants as his Class-I heirs. It was further averred that the plaintiff- appellants served Amar Chand till his death and that the last rites were also performed by them. It was further the case that the plaintiff-appellant No.1 had applied for grant of succession certificate under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was granted in her favour on 11/8/2011 and the plaintiff-appellants were declared as Class-I heirs of Amar Chand. The said certificate was issued qua the pension of Amar Chand in favour of the plaintiff-appellant No.1. It was further the case that Amar Chand was a Government employee and that after his death all his moveable or immoveable properties were inherited by the plaintiff- appellants. On notice the defendant-respondents filed their written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits it was stated that the plaintiff-appellant No.1 was not the legally wedded wife of Amar Chand and the remaining plaintiff-appellant Nos. 2 to 5 were not children of Amar Chand. It was further stated that the marriage of the defendant-respondent No.1, namely, Jatinder Kaur, was solemnized on 11/7/1981 at Dabwali and that the defendant- respondents were Class-I hears of Amar Chand. It was further contended that an application was filed by the defendant-respondent No.1 under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was allowed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on 2/11/1989. In the said petition, Amar Chand had specifically admitted Jatinder Kaur (defendant-respondent No.1 herein) as his legally wedded wife. It was further contended that the defendant-respondents were residing in the house belonging to Amar Chand. Replication was not filed. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(3.) The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 22/3/2017 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 26/10/2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellants.