HARWANT SINGH Vs. BEANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1984 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1982 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Moga, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Beant Kaur (deceased), now represented by her legal representatives for possession of half share of the suit land as its owner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Waryam Singh was the owner of the suit land and after his death the land had descended to his son Hazura Singh. On the death of Hazura Singh the land devolved upon his mother Smt. Dani, who gifted the property to her daughter Smt. Rattni, i.e., the sister of Hazura Singh. The collaterals of Hazura Singh filed a suit for cancellation of the gift executed by Smt. Dani in favour of her daughter Smt. Rattni on the ground that Smt. Dani had no right to make a gift as she was holding the property as life estate. The collaterals also contended that the suit property was ancestral qua them in the hands of Hazura Singh. In the trial Court the suit of the reversioners was dismissal and the property was found to be non- ancestral and they were not held to be the collaterals to challenge the alienation by a limited owner/widow, i.e., Smt. Dani. The collaterals/reversioners filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, who held that the reversioners, who had challenged the alienation, were collaterals of Hazura Singh of 6th degree and that even the land was non- ancestral. Finally the alienation was held to be not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiff as Smt. Rattni, who was the sister of original owner Hazura Singh was discarded in the matter of succession even in case of self-acquired property and 6th degree collaterals were preferred even in the non-ancestral property on the ground that daughter could succeed to self-acquired property in preference to 6th degree collaterals, but the sister, i.e., Smt. Rattni, could not exclude the collaterals even in the self-acquired property and as a result the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the reversioners/collaterals and held that the gift would be void after the death or remarriage of Dani. Smt. Rattni filed a regular second appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed in the year 1948. Then Smt. Rattni filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There a compromise took place and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order that the reversioners would get possession of half of the property immediately through legal proceedings and it as further held on the basis of the compromise that half share of the property will remain with Smt. Rattni - the alienee - and that would be enjoyed by her during her life-time and on her death that half share would go to the then reversioners of Hazura Singh. Meanwhile, Hindu Succession Act came into force and Smt. Rattni was recorded as the owner of the said property. The defendants-reversioners took possession of half share of the suit land in execution on 12.1.1960. The defendants have allegedly taken illegal possession of the land and as a result, Smt. Beant Kaur daughter of Smt. Rattni filed a suit for possession alleging that she (Smt. Rattni) was the owner of the suit land and she died about two years back leaving the plaintiff as her sole heir, being her daughter, as well as the legatee under the will. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants took illegal possession of the entire land and got sanctioned mutation of half of the land in their favour without right and without her (plaintiff's) knowledge. The plaintiff Smt. Beant Kaur called upon the defendants to admit her title in the suit land and on their refusal to do so, she has filed the suit for possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also alleged that she was also in possession of the property and earlier she filed a suit for declaration but during the pendency of the suit the defendants took forcible possession and resultantly, she withdrew that suit with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement in which she reiterated her allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement.