MST. BUI (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL, REPRESENTATIVES Vs. GURDIP SINGH (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRIMATI Bui (now the Appellant) instituted suit for joint possession of land measuring 87 Kanals 4 Marias described in the heading of the plaint (hereinafter called the land) claiming one -half share therein with the allegations that her husband Harnam Singh, and Gurdit Singh were joint owners and after the death of Harnam Singh she had succeeded to one -half share in the land She succeeded in the suit. Gurdit Singh carried appeal which was allowed by the District Judge, Kapurthala and she was non -suited. Hence, she came to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) THE material facts essential for the decision of the controversy between the parties, are that Harnam Singh was the first cousin of Gurdit Singh that they held occupancy rights in equal shares in the pre -consolidation land, that he (Harnam Singh) had died on July 12, 1949. Gurdit Singh got the occupancy rights held by Harnam Singh in the land mutated in his favour on July 20, 1951 representing that he (Harnam Singh) had died without a widow. The said occupancy rights had matured into ownership on account of change in law and a mutation to that effect was sanctioned in favour of Harnam Singh on October 24, 1951 The land is the post -consolidation one of the aforesaid land. Shrimati Bui claimed that she was the widow of Harnam Singh and after his death she had been living in another village with her married daughter Taking advantage of her absence from the village, Gurdit Singh misrepresented to the Revenue Authorities that he (Harnam Singh) had died widowless and thereby succeeded in getting the land mutated in his favour. As such, the said mutation was ineffective against her rights. According to her, Gurdit Singh had been previously paying her share in the produce of the land after the death of her husband -Harnam Singh, but had stopped paying the same in or about the year 1965(sic). So, she brought the suit. Gurdit Singh contested the suit. He admitted that Harnam Singh was ca -occupancy tenant with him in the land in equal share but he controverted the other material allegations of Shrimati Bui and pleaded inter alla that she had contracted second marriage With another person of village Patnura in District Jullundur and had been residing with him as his wife, and according to special aw of inheritance obtaining in the Erst while State of Kapurlhala(sic) (the land being situate within the limits of that State) she was not entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights held by Harnam Singh, and suit was barred by time and was not cognizable by Civil Court. The suit was tried on the following issues:

(3.) The facts, that Harnam Singh was co -occupancy tenant with Gurdit Singh in the pre -consolidation land and their shares therein were equal, that he (Harnam Singh) died on July 12, 1949, and due to change in law, the said occupancy rights had matured into ownership and the land is the post -consolidation one of the aforesaid land wherein Harnam Singh and Gurdit Singh were occupancy tenants, are not disputed. The findings recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, 4A and 4B and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court were not contested, and I too do not find any defect therein. The plea raised by Gurdit Singh in the written statement that according to special law of inheritance prevailing in the Erstwhile State of Kapurthala, the Appellant was not entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights held by Harnam Singh, was too not pressed, for the obvious reason that the law obtaining in the Eastwhile Kapurthala State had ceased to operate, with effect from August 20, 1918, when the said State of Kapurthala merged into Patiala and East Punjab States Union.