PARMESHWARI Vs. KAURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a cantankerous dispute having a long chequered history and since I intend to exercise my inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a more than the ordinary detail of facts would be necessary.

(2.) One Dewan had two sons by the name of Bishna and Ram Saran. Prior to 1966, a parcel of land measuring 298 Kanals 17 Marlas and other ancillary properties in the form of houses and plots situated in village Dara Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, were owned by the aforesaid Bishna and Ram Saran; Bishna having 2/3rd share therein and Ram Saran having the remaining 1/3rd share. Bishna, however, in the meantime died and his estate stood devolved in the name of his son Narata, his other son Mangta and Smt. Kauri, widow of still another son Kartara, in equal shares. Prior to his death, Ram Saran was in joint occupation of the entire land with Narata, Mangta and Smt. Kauri. The cultivation of the entire area was joint and the holding was shown in the revenue papers to be as possessed by the co-sharers. Ram Saran died in the year 1966. And this was the beginning of the dispute. Narata claimed the estate of Ram Saran on the basis of a Will. Smt. Parmeshwari, as daughter claimed it on the basis of inheritance. The suit, however, was instituted by Smt. Parmeshwari seeking possession of 1/3rd share in the entire holding. She, however, impleaded in the suit only Narata as the defendant. The suit had a chequered history. At one stage, it was decided before this Court on the basis of a compromise whereby Narata was required to pay Parmeshwari a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and in the event of his failure to do so, the suit had to stand decreed. And, on his failure to do so, the suit for possession was decreed. Narata took the matter to the Supreme Court and there the controversy between him and Smt. Parmeshwari was settled by way of compromise and a preliminary decree was passed on July 27, 1984, in the following terms :-

(3.) The trial court then on October 19, 1984, appointed the Tehsildar (Revenue) Thanesar as Local Commissioner for effecting equitable partition of the suit property between the parties in accordance with the preliminary decree passed by the Supreme Court. It is at that point of time that Smt. Kauri, widow of Kartara, one of the co-sharers, woke up. She filed an application for being made a party to the suit, but her prayer was declined. She even agitated before this Court that she ought to have been made a party to the suit but to no avail. Even the Tehsildar, Thanesar, Local Commissioner did not associate her in determining the mode of partition, on the premises that the parties to the suit were only Smt. Parmeshwari and Narata and that the suit land only had to be equitably partitioned. The Local Commissioner then finally prepared his report whereby he proposed 66 Kanals 7 Marlas of land in specific killa numbers to be given to Smt. Parmeshwari. That report was accepted by the trial Judge and then final decree was drawn on December 17, 1984, in accordance therewith.