DHARAM PAL Vs. BHIM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Isri was the owner of certain land. He died in 1964, leaving behind his widow Nathia, two sons, namely, Dharam Pal and Ram Chand-appellants, one daughter, namely, Dharam Wati-appellant No.3. Hari Chand, son of Isri had died earlier and at the time of death of Isri, Bhim Kaur-respondent No. 1 widow and two daughters of Hari Chand, namely, Kamlesh (respondent No. 2) and Lachho (respondent No.3) were alive. Therefore, the inheritance of Isri should have been sanctioned as per law in equal shares in favour of Dharam Pal, Ram Chand and Dharam Wati-appellants, Nathia widow of Isri and in favour of Bhim Kaur etc. being the legal heirs of Hari Chand, predeceased son of Isri. It was not so done. The mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned only in favour of other legal heirs of Isri, except respondents No. 1 to 3. These respondents filed the civil suit for declaration that they are the owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/4th share and also for injunction.

(2.) The said suit was resisted by the appellants on various grounds. It was pleaded that mutation regarding inheritance of Isri was entered at No. 536 and was sanctioned on 26.9.1965 and since then the appellants are coming in possession as owners. Initially, the relationship of the respondents with Isri and with Hari Chand was denied. It was also denied at one stage if Hari Chand had any relationship with Isri. The plea of limitation was also pleaded. The learned trial Court held that Hari Chand was the predeceased son of Isri. Respondent No. 1 was the widow of said Hari Chand, while respondents No. 2 and 3 were his daughters. Nathia had died after the death of Isri, therefore, respondent No. 1 (Bhim Kaur-widow of Hari Chand) was held to be the owner to the extent of 1/5th share after the death of Isri and was held entitled to the 1/4th share after the death of Nathia relating to the property situated in village Mauza Dahekula and Mauza Manjhavali. However, the suit of the respondents qua the land situated in Kabulpur Khadar Patti Mehtab was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.12.2004.

(3.) The appellants had filed the appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. However, relief was modified to the extent that respondent No. 1 was held to be owner to the extent of 1/5th share of the property left by her father-in-law Isri, while she had inherited 1/4th share out of 1/5th share of Nathia. This appeal was accordingly, dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006.