SURJAN SINGH Vs. GURDEV KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 1626 and 1887 of 1976, as both these appeals have been filed against the same judgment of the Additional District Judge, dated 31st August, 1976.

(2.) Smt. Sohu had three daughters, namely Smt. Indo, Gurdev Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur. Smt Indo died without leaving any heirs. Plaintiffs, Jangir Kaur and Harpal Kaur are the daughters of Bhagwan Kaur. It was alleged that 1/4 th share in the disputed land belonged to Mst. Sohu, who was the owner and co- sharer of the same along with defendant Nos 1 to 11. Gurdev Kaur daughter of Smt. Sohu pleaded that Smt. Sohu, her mother, resided with her in village Jangirana, District Bhatinda, and died thereon 2nd July, 1960. The plaintiffs asserted that the aforesaid defendants had been paying their share of crop for about 3 or 4 years before the filing of the suit and thereafter they stopped doing so. It came to their knowledge that defendants 1 to 7 got sanctioned inheritance on 7th March, 1941, falsely representing that Smt. Sohu died in 1940. Since Smt. Sohu had died in the year 1960 after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs were entitled to her estate. Hence the present suit for possession was filed on 27th January, 1969. The defendants admitted in their written statement that Smt. Sohu was a co-sharer in the suit land along with defendant Nos. 1s to 7 till her death, which according to them, took place in 1940. They denied that she was in possession of the suit land till 1963-64. It was further admitted that Smt. Sohu used to reside in village Jangirana with Gurdev Kaur but it was denied that she died on 2nd July, 1960 in that village. The defendants denied having paid any Batai to the plaintiffs and asserted that they are in possession of the suit land since 1940 without interruption and had thus become owners by adverse possession.

(3.) The trial Court found that Smt. Sohu died on 2nd July, 1960, as per the death entry Exhibit P.1, and not in the year 1940 as claimed by the defendants in their written statement. Thus the mutation Exhibit P.3 sanctioned in favour of the defendants on 7th March, 1941 was against facts and not binding upon the plaintiffs. It was further found that the suit was within limitation and the defendants have failed to prove the plea of adverse possession. Consequently, decree for joint possession was passed holding that Gurdev Kaur was entitled to 1/8th share whereas Jangir Kaur and Harpal Kaur were entitled to 1/6th share. Dissatisfied with the same, two appeals were filed, one by the defendant Harnam Kaur and the other by Gurdev Kaur, plaintiff, wherein she claimed that she alone was entitled to 1/4th share to the exclusion of Jangir Kaur and Harpal Kaur, who are the daughters of her deceased sister Bhagwan Kaur. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, both the appeals were dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed R.S.A. No 1626 of 1976, whereas the plaintiff Gurdev Kaur has filed R.S.A. No 1887 of 1976.