SURJIT KAUR Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by legal heirs of Swaran Singh, defendant (since deceased), against concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by Smt. Dropti Devi daughter of Thakur Singh wife of late Joginder Singh (since deceased) now represented by legal heirs, was decreed and she was declared owner of the suit land measuring 18 kanals 10 marlas as fully described in the head note of the plaint and the sale deed dated 15.04.1993 in respect of 206/362 share out of this land in favour of defendant was declared as void, illegal, ineffective and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff. She was held entitled to possession of land measuring 10 kanals 6 marlas contained in khasra Nos. 1405, 1406, 1407, 1118/1408 and 1912/1408.

(2.) The case of plaintiff Dropti Devi, in brief, is that suit land was owned by Thakur Singh son of Hamira father of plaintiff. He died in the year 1978. Vide Will dated 26.11.1973, 10 kanals 6 marlas of land contained in khasra No.1405, 1406, 1407, 1811/1408 and 1912/1408 was bequeathed to Deep Kaur, step mother of plaintiff Dropti Devi with usual condition that she will get produce of the land but shall not be entitled to dispose of the same. Mutation No.3795 was sanctioned in favour of Deep Kaur as per the Will and she died on 19.01.1999. Plaintiff approached the patwari and came to know that defendant had got the mutation sanctioned as per sale deed dated 15.04.1993 with respect to 206/362 share out of the suit land in khata No.230/480 and 482. It has been alleged that the deceased never executed alleged sale deed or received any sale consideration. She had no right to transfer the suit land as only limited rights were given to her under the Will. The defendants were requested to admit the claim of the plaintiff over the suit land but in vain, hence, this suit.

(3.) The defendant Swaran Singh contested the claim of plaintiff, inter-alia pleading that they had purchased the suit land from Deep Kaur who was absolute owner in possession of the same. He is now in possession of land measuring 10 kanals 6 marlas as a cosharer and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek possession of these khasra numbers. Earlier his possession over the suit land was as tenant under Deep Kaur as per the lease deed executed in the year 1983 and 1987. The defendant purchased the land measuring 10 kanals 6 marlas from Deep Kaur after going through the revenue record where she was entered as owner without any restriction or rider on her right. Even otherwise, as per provisions of Section 14 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (later referred to as 'Act of 1956') Deep Kaur had become absolute owner of the suit land and any rider or restriction upon her right was not operative against her. The factum of Will dated 26.11.1973 was denied.