DAYALA RAM Vs. SMT. RAKHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for possession of the agricultural land has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) DAYALA Ram Plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the land measuring 12 Kanals 11 Marlas, alleging that one Haria son of Machhru was the owner of the suit land. He died about three years before the filing of the suit, leaving behind no widow or issue. The Plaintiff claimed himself to be the real brother of deceased Haria, and thus entitled to succeed to his estate. It was further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 Shrimati Rakhi was not the legally wedded wife of Haria deceased, when the Revenue Authorities sanctioned mutation in her favour considering her to be his widow, and en that basis she has taken forcible possession of the suit land. Defendants Nos. 2 to 7 were impleaded as they purchased part of the suit land from Shrimati Rakhi. In the written statement filed on behalf of Shrimati Rakhi it was inter alia pleaded that the was the widow of Haria deceased and further that Haria deceased had executed a will in her favour on 27th September, 1969 (Exhibited D. 1). The trial Court found that Shrimati Rakhi Defendant was the legally wedded wife of Haria deceased. The plea of the will (Exhibit D 1) set up by the Defendant Shrimati Rakhi was negatived, as it was found that it was not a genuine document In view of the finding that Shrimati Rakhi was the widow of the deceased, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Senior Sub Judge, with enhanced appellate powers, affirmed the said finding of the trial Court Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court

(3.) AFTER hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal. After discussing the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that Shrimati Rakhi Defendant is the legally wedded wife of Haria deceased. This is a finding of fact based on the appreciation of evidence, and, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality therein as to be interfered with in second appeal. Shrimati Rakhi produced Parduman Singh (D W. 2), who is the Lambardar of the village, and Jit Singh (D W 3), who were categoric that Haria deceased was married to Shrimati Rakhi Defendant and that Shrimati Rakhi Defendant was widow of Haria deceased They further stated that they had been seeing Haria and Shrimati Rakhi living together as husband and wife. In this view of the evidence, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that Shrimati Rakhi is the widow of Haria deceased. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.