PURAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. RESHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the death of Pala Singh, in 1915, his land was inherited by his widow Kishni and by his predeceased son's widow Dhanti in equal shares. Some more land came to the two ladies by collateral succession on the death of a collateral of Pala Singh, whose estate they represented. Subsequently Dhanti remarried, which resulted in the forfeiture of the half share of the land with her, which land then came to Kishni.

(2.) Resham Singh alias Udhe Chand Respondent is a collateral of Pala Singh. In 1936, he instituted a suit against Kishni for possession of the entire land with her on the ground that she having become unchaste had forfeited her right to that land. On such forfeiture he claimed the land as the next collateral heir to Pala Singh. A copy of the judgment, dated August 31, 1937, of the District Judge, in appeal, in that suit is on the file. The learned District Judge first found that Kishni had become unchaste and then he found that because of unchastity, under the custom applicable to the parties, she had forfeited the whole of the land in her possession as representative of her deceased husband Pala Singh. After those findings the learned Judge considered the question of claim for maintenance of Kishni. The counsel for the Respondent did not question her right to maintenance. In view of the litigation between the parties, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that to grant a monthly sum as maintenance would only plunge the parties into perpetual difficulties and litigation because of the strained relations between them. He was of the view that Kishni be allowed to remain in possession of certain amount of land out of which she should maintain herself during her lifetime. To this course Resham Singh Respondent agreed. On that the learned District Judge proceeded to grant a decree to Resham Singh Respondent for possession of the entire suit land with the exception of 33 Kanals and 16 -1/3 Marlas, which land was to remain in her possession so as to enable her to maintain herself during her lifetime. Against the decree of the learned District Judge there was a second appeal in the High Court. The parties entered into a compromise in that appeal and on February 14, 1938, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Addison and Din Mohammad, JJ.) delivered this judgment in that second appeal - -"Musammat Kishni will be allowed half the suit land by way of maintenance as well as her husband's house for her residence, with no power of alienation with regard to the land or house. To this extent the decree of the District Judge is modified, Plaintiff getting immediate possession of only half of the land in suit." This judgment of the High Court proceeds on the basis of upholding the findings of the learned District Judge as regards the unchastity of Kishni and on that account forfeiture of the land with her as inheritance representing her deceased husband Pala Singh. She was given half of the land then in dispute as maintenance with no power of alienation with regard to it. Resham Singh, Respondent obtained decree for possession of the remaining half on the affirmance of the findings of the learned District Judge.

(3.) There was consolidation of holdings in village Bilga of the parties and the land now in dispute came to be allotted to Kishni in lieu of the half share of land that remained with her under the decree of the High Court. But of this land possession was taken by Resham Singh Respondent. On that Kishni brought a suit for possession of the land in dispute against this Respondent. She obtained a decree in that respect on January 5, 1961. The decree relates to 36 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land in dispute. Before, however, she could execute the decree and take possession under it, Kishni died. Puran Singh and Baldev Singh Appellants are real brothers and Surjit Appellant is their sister. On the death of Kishni, they claim succession to her and on that basis they made an application for execution of the decree for possession obtained by Kishni against Resham Singh Respondent. In the application, they show themselves as legal representatives of Kishni deceased. To that execution application Resham Singh Respondent took an objection under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure that there was no executable decree because Kishni deceased had been given the land for her maintenance, obviously during her lifetime, and, her life having come to an end, with it has come to an end any estate that was with her, so that she has left behind nothing transmittable by inheritance. The Subordinate Judge of Phillaur by his order of June 10, 1963, accepted the objection application of Resham Singh Respondent with the result that he dismissed the application of the Appellants for execution of the decree in favour of Kishni deceased and against Resham Singh Respondent for possession of the land in dispute. On appeal, in his judgment of October 5, 1963, the learned District Judge of Jullundur has affirmed the order of the executing Court and dismissed the appeal of the Appellants. This is a second appeal by the Appellants against the judgment of the learned District Judge.