RAM KAUR Vs. SAUDAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It would be useful to have a look at the following pedigree table in order to understand the facts out of which this second appeal arises :

(2.) Prem Kaur wife of Bagga Singh died somewhere in 1960 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had come into force. Under normal circumstances, the property left by her would have been shared equally by the branches of Kishan Singh and Narain Singh because by that time a Hindu daughter had come to be recognised as an heir. Ram Kaur, the plaintiff-appellant, before me had brought a suit for possession of one half share of the property left by Prem Kaur on the ground that as the daughter of Narain Singh who in turn was the real brother of Bagga Singh, she was entitled to inherit the property left by Prem Kaur along with Saudagar Singh defendant No. 1 in equal shares. The aforementioned pedigree table was given in paragraph 3 of the plaint and in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement the defendant-respondents did not contest the pedigree table apart from disputing that Ram Kaur was the daughter of Narain Singh. The factam of the execution of the will and its validity was also contested on the ground that Prem Kaur was not of sound disposing mind at the time of making the will which had been set up by the defendant-respondents. The latter contested these pleas and asserted that Prem Kaur deceased had made a valid will in favour of Bachan Singh in lieu of services. On the pleas raised by the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) On issue No. (1A), the learned trial Court held that Bachan Singh defendant-respondent while appearing as D.W.4 had made an evasive statement inasmuch as he did admit that Narain Singh had left two daughters but he did not admit that the appellant was one of them. It accepted the testimony of Ram Kaur who appeared as P.W.2 and Kehar Singh P.W.1 on this point and held that she was proved to be the daughter of Narain Singh. This finding was not seriously challenged before the learned lower appellate which also affirmed the finding of the learned trial Court on this point.