HARCHAND SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal at the instance of the legal representatives of the plaintiff, Smt. Chandi, widow of one Harnam Singh, arises out of her suit for possession on the basis of title of the suit property described in the head-note of the plaint as consisting of items 'A' to 'G'.

(2.) The case set up in the plaint was that her son Amar Singh died on 17-11-1954 without leaving a male issue; that he left behind three daughters, defendants 1 to 3, his wife having predeceased him; that the parties were agriculturists and were in the matter of succession governed by customary law, according to which she was entitled to succeed to the suit property left behind by her son Amar Singh; and that the mutation of inheritance No. 5343 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 was illegal and void and had no legal effect so far as the rights of the plaintiffs were concerned.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 contested the claim of the plaintiff and, inter alia, asserted that at the time of the death their father, they were minors and were entitled to succeed to the estate of their father in preference to their grandmother, the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that in the Court of the Guardian Judge (District Judge), the plaintiff Smt. Chandi had made an application dt. 9-12-1954, Exhibit D. 4, in which she had admitted the fact that defendants 1 to 3 were minors and were owners in possession of the suit property and prayed for her appointment as guardian of the person and property of the defendants 1 to 3; that the plaintiff on 11-2-1955 made a statement Exhibit D. 5 while giving evidence in the Court of the Guardian Judge that in case she was appointed the guardian of the person and property of the minors, she would not claim any right adverse to defendants 1 to 3 in the suit property and that she conceded that the property in dispute was owned and possessed by defendants 1 to 3; that after that statement the Guardian Judge by his order dt. 11-3-1955 appointed the plaintiff Smt. Chandi as guardian of the person and property of defendants 1 to 3; and that she was estopped to file the present suit by her act and conduct. It was also pleaded that in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the plaintiff had abandoned and relinquished her title, if any, in the suit property.