MST. DANI AND ANR. Vs. NATHA SINGH, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR a better appreciation of the dispute, Short pedigree table to connect the parties may be recited. Two brothers Mihan Singh and Ram Singh owned half share each in land measuring 75 Bighas and 19 Biswas Mihan Singh was previously married to Mst. Punjab Kaur and out of this Wedlock was born a daughter Harnam Kaur. The latter after her marriage with one Gaijan Singh had four children, namely, Mst. Dani, Man Singh, Pal Singh and Gurdev Singh. These four children are the Plaintiffs in the suits. Their case as set out in the plaint is that Mihan Singh, after the death of their maternal grandmother Punjab Kaur had contracted a second marriage with Mst. Mahan Kaur, Mihan Singh had died and his property had devoted upon his widow Mahan Kaur. Mahan Kaur also died but after her death, her property had been mutated in the name of Natha Singh Defendant Respondent son of Ram Singh, who in turn, was the brother of Mihan Singh. The Plaintiffs claimed that their mother Rannam Kaur having already died, they were preferential heirs to the property of Mahan Kaur deceased as against Natha Singh who was Mahan Kaur's husband's brother's son. The Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of the property left by Mahan Kaur.

(2.) THE party arrayed on the other side, i.e. Natha Singh had different story to tell. According to him, the deceased Mahan Kaur was previously married with his father Ram Singh and he (Natha Singh) was their offspring After the death of his father Ram Singh, his mother Mahan Kaur contracted a marriage with Mihan Singh, brother of Ram Singh, Natha Singh, therefore, asserted that being the son of Mahan Kaur deceased though from the lions of her earlier husband Ram Singh, he had a preferential right to the property in dispute as against, the Plaintiff -Appellants who were not direct descendants of Mahan Kaur. Apart from this contention, as is usual in such suits, the relationship of the Plaintiffs with Mihan Singh through his first wife Punjab Kaur was also disputed. As a counter -blast, the Plaintiffs disputed the relationship of Natha Singh as a son of Mahan Kaur deceased. The confrontion between the parties led to the framing of the following issues:

(3.) AT the outset it may be observed that the finding of the Courts below on issue No 1 in regard to the relationship of the Plaintiffs with Mihan Singh, the last holder of the property, is not disputed. Similarly, the finding under, issue No. 2 by the lower appellate court about the, paternity of Natha Singh has not been contested though a faint and futile attempt has been made to impugn the fact that Natha Singh is the son of Mahan Kaur from her previous marriage with Ram Singh. In this behalf, a reference is made to the report dated May 10, 1960 (Exhibit P. 1), wherein Natha Singh had averred that he was the sole heir to the estate of Mahan Kaur, widow of Mihan Singh who had died leaving no issue. This report has been very rightly construed by the lower appellate Court to mean that Natha Singh was obviously making a reference to Mahan Kaur having left no children from the loins of Mihan Singh. The report does not, therefore, in any way contradict the stand taken by Natha Singh in this legation . The finding of the trial Court in this behalf is, therefore, affirmed.