AMAR KAUR Vs. JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present second appeal relates to a part of the land left by one Teja Singh. He along with his two brothers Tulsa Singh and Gurdev Singh owned property in three villages, Chamaru, Sonta and Kapuri, in district Patiala. He died somewhere in 1944 and on his death, his estate was mutated jointly in favour of his two widows, Joginder Kaur alias Jagir Kaur and Gurdial Kaur alias Hardial Kaur. Gurdial Kaur also died in 1950. On her death, her share in the property was mutated in favour of her unmarried daughter Amar Kaur till her marriage. The mutation with regard to the land in village Chamaru, was attested on 18th of August, 1953. So far as the land in village Kapuri was concerned, it appears that it remained in the name of Joginder Kaur alone. Amar Kaur was married to one Bhag Singh in May 1961 and in the meantime the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force on 17th of June, 1956. In October, 1963, Amar Kaur gave a notice to Gurdev Singh brother of Teja Singh and who had after the latter's death married by karewa effect that she wanted her share to be separated by partition. This notice was followed by an application to the revenue authorities made by her in this behalf in December, 1963. In March, 1964, the Tehsildar, Rajpura refused to take any action on this application, because a question of title had been raised inasmuch as in the meantime in December, 1963 a suit had been filed by Joginder Kaur, out of which this second appeal was arisen, against Amar Kaur for joint possession of the land left by Gurdial Kaur. The allegations of Joginder Kaur were that she never knew about the same had been sanctioned behind her back. In any case, according to her, Amar Kaur was entitled to retain the land up to the date of her marriage after which she had no right to it. It was also contended by her that after the death of Gurdial Kaur, she became the owner of her share in the property as well by survivorship.

(2.) The suit was contested by Amar Kaur who pleaded that by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she, on 17th June, 1956, had become an absolute owner of the property which she had received in lieu of maintenance till her marriage. It was also pleaded by her that since Joginder Kaur had re-married by Karewa Gurdev Singh after the death of her husband Teja Singh, she had forfeited her rights in the property and no locus standi to bring the present action.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Amar Kaur had become full owner of the estate of Gurdial Kaur by virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. It may be mentioned that no finding was given by it on the second point, namely, whether Joginder Kaur had forfeited her rights in the property by virtue of her karewa marriage with Gurdev Singh and on that account could not file the present suit. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge, Patiala, reversed the decision of the trialy Court and decreed the suit holding that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act would not apply (in the instant case) inasmuch as Amar Kaur was not in possession of the property in dispute and even if it assumed that she was in possession as a co-sharer along with Joginder Kaur, her possession was meaningless, because she was not in possession of the land in dispute in her own right and lawfully. This land, according to the learned Judge, should have gone to Joginder Kaur by survivorship and it was she who was entitled to its possession. Against his decision, the present second appeal has been filed by Amar Kaur.