SUDESH KUMARI Vs. SUKHDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18th April, 1979 passed by the Additional Distt. Judge, Karnal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Sukhdev Raj and Madan Lal (who are the respondents in this case) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the land measuring 11 kanals 13 marlas mentioned in the plaint and defendant Sudesh Kumari (who is the appellant in this case) had no right. It was further prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs on this land. The plaintiffs also claimed possession in case the defendant was found in possession of the suit land. Relying on the evidence of DW-1, Ram Nath, who is the father of defendant Sudesh Kumari and DW 2 Ganga Bishan (the cousin brother of Ram Nath) and also relying on the admissions made by the plaintiff Sukhdev Raj during the mutation proceedings, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant Sudesh Kumari was the daughter of Ram Nath through his first wife Ram Rakhi. In view of these findings, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 3rd September, 1977. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 18th April, 1979. The learned Additional District Judge held that the sole claim of the defendant Sudesh Kumari was based on the recital in the judgment of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, to the effect that one of the plaintiffs Sukhdev Raj made an admission whereas the said statement of the plaintiff had not been proved on record. It was further observed by the learned Additional District Judge that the most suspicious and damaging circumstance against the defendant was that she did not choose to appear in the witness box and she did not sign the written statement. It was further observed that no reason or explanation had been given in the written statement or in the grounds of appeal as to why she had executed power of attorney in favour of Raj Pal. Relying on these findings, the learned Additional District Judge held that the defendant had not been able to prove herself to be the legal heir of Thakur Das and as such she was not entitled to claim property in dispute. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and it was held that the plaintiffs were exclusive owners in possession of the land in dispute. Aggrieved by this judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.