MUKHTIAR KAUR Vs. GHULAB KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, sangrur, vide which the appeal filed by Mukhtiar Kaur appellant was dismissed with costs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Gurdial Kaur widow of Kartar singh, resident of village Gujran, Tehsil and District Sangrur, owned land measuring 84 bighas 9 biswas bham. She gifted that land by means of a registered gift deed dated 6-10-1956 in favour of her two daughters namely gulab Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur. Gurdial Kaur filed a suit against her daughters mukhtiar Kaur and Gulab Kaur, for declaration that the gift-deed dated 6-101956, executed by her in favour of her daughters, was null and void on the ground that she was a simpleton woman and fraud had been practised upon her, for getting gift-deed executed. She further pleaded that the facts mentioned in the gift-deed, that the defendants had lived with her after, their marriage and rendered services to her, were wrong and that she had not parted with the possession of the land in favour of her daughters. The suit was decreed ex parte on July 17, 1959. Mukhtiar Kaur made an application to get the ex parte decree set aside. That application was still pending when Gurdial Kaur died. Her daughter Gulab Kaur was substituted as her legal representative. The application filed by Mukhtiar Kaur was dismissed on 17-8-1964. Smt. Mukhtiar kaur filed an appeal against the order of dismissal of that application which was accepted and the case was remanded for fresh trial. Gulab Kaur, who had already been impleaded as a legal representative of Gurdial Kaur, was arrayed as a plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) THE suit was contested by Mukhtiar Kaur and the following issues were framed :-1. Whether the parties are governed by custom in matters of gift? O. P. 2. Whether the gift in question was ex ecuted as a result of fraud ? O. P. 3. Whether the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the donees an alleged ? O. D. (onus objected)4. Whether the gift was not accepted by the donees, if so, with what effect ? o. D. 5. Whether the plaint is bad for having not been signed and verified by the plain tiff ? O. D. 6. Relief. The trial Court decreed the suit and its judgment was affirmed by the district Judge, Sangrur.