SHARIFFAN Vs. KURARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1978 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ambala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1977 passed by the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Jagadhri, who decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration holding that defendant No. 1 Mst. Shariffan was the limited owner of the disputed property and was not competent to alienate the same except for consideration and legal necessity. It was also declared, by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court that the impugned will dated 7.12.1973 executed by defendant No. 1 Mst. Shariffan in favour of defendant No. 2 Munshi, her grandson from the first husband, in relation to the disputed property, was also invalid and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The brief facts of the case arc as follows :-

(3.) Balia and others filed a suit for declaration that defendant No. 1 Mst. Shariffan, being a limited owner of the disputed land and house described in the head-note of the plaint, was incompetent to alienate the same by testamentary disposition or in any other manner and subsequently the will dated 7.12.1973 executed by her in favour of defendant No. 2 Munshi was illegal, invalid and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, who were the reversioners of shafru, the second husband of Mst. Shariffan. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the collaterals and reversioners of defendant No. 1 Shariffan and her husband Shafru. The suit land and the disputed house were inherited by defendant No. 1 from her husband Shafru and the same are ancestral properties qua the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Mst. Shariffan, who was earlier married to Rulia, grandfather of defendant No. 2 Munshi son of Shukra, on the death of Rulia contracted Karewa with Shafru, who was the younger brother of Rulia. The parties to the suit are Gujjar Musalman by caste and are governed by Customary Law of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of succession and alienation. In these circumstances defendant No. 1 held the property of her husband Shafru as limited owner and could not alienate the same by way of testamentary disposition or in any other way, but for legal necessity. However, she executed a registered will dated 7.12.1973 in favour of defendant No. 2 Munshi regarding the disputed properties. The said will was in violation of the Customary-Law and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, who were the reversioners of defendant No. 1 and her husband Shafru, as they were entitled to succeed the disputed property on the death of defendant No. 1. The defendants were called upon several times to cancel the impugned will and admit the plaintiffs' rights, but to no effect.