ANANT RAM ALIAS ANTU Vs. MURTHRI AND OHTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for possession has been dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) One Nagar was admittedly the owner of the suit property. He died in the month of May, 1966. After his death, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of his widow Mst-murthri, The plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that Mst. Murthri was not the widow of Nagar deceased and she was the widow of one Telu, brother of nagar. It was also alleged that Telu had died during the life time of Nagar had after the death of her husband Telu, Mst Murthri remained as widow of Telu. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were the sons of Mst. Kirpi whereas dependent No. 3 Mst. Sunehri real sister of Nagar deceased. It was, therefore, pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 were the legal heirs of Nagar deceased and were entitled to recover the possession of the suit land. In the written statement it was pleased that Mst. Murthri sold the land vide sale vide sale deed dated June 13, 1972, in favour of Anant Ram and Rati Ram as she was pleaded by smt. Murthri that after the death of her husband Telu, she had performed Karewa marriage with Nagar. The relationship of the plaintiff with Nagar was denied. It was also denied that Nagar had any sister named Mst. Kirpi. The trial Court found that Mst. Murthri was proved to be the widow of Nagar as she had performed Karewa with him. In the plaintiffs were related to the deceased Nagar or not. Consequently, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. IN appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff's have filed the second appeal in this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal. On the appreciation of the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, it has been concurrently found by both the Courts belwo that Mst, Murthri was the widow of Nagar as she had entered into a Karewa marriage with him after the death of her previons husband Telu and thus she was the legal heir of the deceased . If once that was so held then it becomes immaterial whether the plaintiffs were related to the deceased or not as claimed by them because widow is the preferential heir. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said findings as to interfere in second appeal. Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.