LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-256

TILAK RAJ Vs. BAIKUNTHI DEVI

Decided On August 18, 2006
TILAK RAJ Appellant
V/S
BAIKUNTHI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present RSA directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.6.1983 passed by the Ist Appellate Court, the following substantial questions of law were framed :

(2.) THE facts, as relevant for disposal of the controversy, are as under : One Thakru, the common ancestor of the parties, had two sons, namely Mange Ram and Tilak Raj. The former was father of plaintiff-appellant Tilak Raj. Datta Ram @ Datu, husband of Mst. Baikunthi was the other son. The property in suit was owned by and was in the possession of Data Ram who died on 23.2.1968, leaving his wife Mst. Baikunthi and his mother Mst. Radhi as natural and legal heirs. Mst. Radhi died on 13.9.1968. Before her death, she executed a registered will dated 30.4.1968 in favour of her son i.e. plaintiff-appellant. However, the land left by Data Ram was mutated in favour of Baikunthi on the basis of Will dated 16.1.1968 which she produced before the Revenue Authorities. In order to establish his claim qua half share of the property willed in his favour by his mother Mst. Radhi, the plaintiff- appellant filed a civil suit on 28.8.1969. In that civil suit, Baikunthi set up a Will purporting to have been executed by her husband in her favour on 16.1.1968. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.1976. The plea of plaintiff-appellant Tilak Raj, based upon registered Will dated 30.4.1968, was upheld. The plea raised by Baikhunthi on the basis of the Will dated 16.1.1968 was negatived.

(3.) APART therefrom, certain land owned by Data Ram @ Datu had been acquired by the Fertilizer Corporation of India (for short to be referred as "FCI") during his life time. After his demise, a part of that land was reconveyed in view of the fact that the beneficiary under the acquisition i.e. FCI, found that a part of the acquired land was surplus. The plea, raised in the context, was that he had paid his share of the re-purchase amount and, thus, he had become owner of the re-purchased/reconveyed land to the extent of half share.