CHAJJA SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the appellate decree of the District Judge Patiala, whereby he dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the trial Sub-Judge. The Plaintiffs are the sons of Mt. Lachhmi who sold 45 bighas and 6 biswas of agricultural land for Rs. 2,400 in favour of Muqaddam Singh and Asa Singh on 13-8-1996. The Plaintiff's case was that Mt. Lachhmi being a limited owner and the sale being by her without consideration and valid necessity the same was not binding upon them and Pritam Singh Defendant 5 who was their brother. Accordingly they prayed that a decree be granted in their favour that the sale did not affect their reversionary interests. Pritam Singh and Amar Singh who were described in the plaint as Defendant 1 were impleaded because their father Garja Singh had brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of the sale and bad obtained a decree and also because they were in possession of the land. It is these Defendants that resisted the suit. They raised a number of objections, the most important of them were (i) that Mt. Lachhmi was full owner, and (ii) that the Plaintiffs had no locus standi to bring the action, because they were not related to Dhian Singh, who was the last male owner of the land. The trial Sub-Judge framed only the following preliminary issue:

(2.) The question relating to the nature of the estate held by Mt. Lachhmi was not directly put in issue nor do I think it was covered by the issue that was actually framed by the trial Sub-Judge but the Courts below have gone into it. They have held that Mt. Lachhmi's estate was not similar to that of a customary or Hindu widow and her powers of alienation were unrestricted. This point was also argued before us at considerable length and must, therefore, be determined.

(3.) Both sides are agreed that the land beloved originally to Dhian Singh, brother of Mt. Lachhmi's father Lehna Singh, and that Lehna Singh had predeceased Dhian Singh. The Defendants maintained that though Mt. Lachhmi acquired the land on Dhian Singh's death she did not do so as his heir and accordingly she took as an absolute owner. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the land devolved upon Mt. Lachhmi as an heir of Dhian Singh, because she was the brother's daughter of the deceased and had, therefore, a right to succeed to him in the absence of nearer heirs. The Plaintiff's counsel further argued that in principle there is no difference between the nature of the estate held by a widow and other female heirs and in any case the daughter of the brother of the propositus so far as her powers of alienation are concerned stands on the same footing as his widow, daughter and mother. My own opinion is that in view of the circumstances under which the land was acquired by Mt. Lachhmi and the Revenue authorities agreed to have it mutated in her favour, it is not necessary to hold whether she was in fact an heir of Dhian Singh and whether according to the law by which Dhian Singh was governed she could have succeeded to him. It appears that Dhian Singh died in Jeth 1983 without leaving any issue, widow or other near heirs. According to the law of Escheat then prevalent in the erstwhile Patiala State, the Revenue authorities took hold of the land and left it to the persons who claimed to be entitled to it to establish their right to succeed to the deceased. Two persons came forward as rival claimants: (1) Nathu Ram who alleged that he was Dhian Singh's adopted son, and (2) Mt. Lachhmi, daughter of Lehna Singh. A perusal of the Tahsildar's report on the merits of the respective claims of Mt. Lachhmi and Nathu would go to show that the position taken up by the former was that Nathu had no connection with Dhian Singh that he was not the adopted son of Dhian Singh and that she being the daughter of Dhian Singh's brother had a right to inherit the land in the absence of the nearer heirs of the deceased. The view of the Tahsildar as stated in the report was that whereas Nathu had not adduced any evidence in support of his alleged adoption, a copy of a decision brought on record by Mt. Lachhmi went to show that in the absence of the male lineal descendants of the deceased female descendants upto the seventh degree can inherit in preference to the Crown and since Mt. Lachhmi was the brother's daughter's daughter (sic) of the propositus no question of escheat to the Crown could arise. It was obviously on the strength of this report that the Revenue Minister by his order dated 3-4-1988 released the land in Mt. Lachhmi's favour and she was recorded its ownor in the revenue papers.