GURNAM SINGH Vs. ASS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in relation to the suit property is only between Gurnam Singh defendant-appellant and Shrimati Ass Kaur, plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The other respondents are pro forma defendants, who did not contest the suit. A detailed pedigree table is not required to be reproduced and it would suffice to mention the following relationship. The suit property originally belonged to Ganda Singh who had two wives, Shrimati Daya Kaur (elder) and Shrimati Sada kaur (younger ). Shrimati Ass Kaur plaintiff-respondent is the daughter of ganda Singh from Shrimati Sada Kaur. Gurnam Singh is the grandson of Isher singh who was real brother of Ganda Singh. Ganda Singh died on November 20, 1937 and in the absence of any male issue, the property left by him devolved upon his two widows. Shrimati Daya Kaur and Shrimati Sada Kaur, in equal shares. Shrimati Daya Kaur died on October 4, 1939, with the result that the surviving widow, Shrimati Sada Kaur, became the owner of the whole of the property. Some years later, to be precise, on June 10, 1957, Shrimati Sada kaur also departed from this planet. The present suit for recovering possession of the property was launched by Shrimati Ass Kaur, being the heir to the same as daughter Of Shrimati Sada Kaur.

(2.) GURNAM Singh appellant who is in possession of the property resisted the suit with various weapons in his armoury by pleading, inter alia, that the suit was not properly valued; that he (appellant) had been validly adopted as a son by ganda Singh; that Ganda Singh had bequeathed the property in his favour by means of a will and that Shrimati Sada Kaur had, in her lifetime, relinquished all her rights to the property in his favour. It may be stated here that on a previous occasion when the case was heard in this Court before remand, one more ground which was projected by Shrimati Ass Kaur respondent in support of her claim was that her mother Shrimati Sada Kaur had become owner of the property by adverse possession. This ground was also controverted by the appellant. All these disputed contentions of the parties crystallised into the following issues which were framed:

(3.) THE decision Of the trial Court, in regard to the various issues, may be summarised. Issue No. 1 became redundant after the deficiency in the Coure fee was made up within the period allowed by the Court. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the appellant was duly adopted by Ganda Singh. The effect of this finding is, however, disputed. The finding under Issue No. 3 relating to the due execution of the will by Ganda Singh in favour of Gurnam Singh was returned in the negative. Relinquishment of rights by Shrimati Sada Kaur in favour of thp appellant was not found to have been established under Issue No. 4. The next issue No. 4-A was also decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. As a cumulative result of these findings, based on the conclusion that even though the adoption of the appellant by Ganda Singh stood proved, he could not succeed to the property in the hands of the younger widow, Shrimati Sada kaur, the suit was decreed in favour of the contesting respondent for the whole of the land in dispute. Gurnam Singh appealed against the verdict of the trial court but as per decision of the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dated July 26, 1965, he failed to obtain any relief. He has cast the net again to catch the illusive fish of success. Let us examine the haul made by him.