DHANNO Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was accepted, thus decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, one Dasondi son of Tota was the occupancy tenant. On his death, the land was inherited by his four sons, namely, Punnu, Gainda, Krishna and Hari Ram in equal shares which finds mention in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1934-35. Smt. Dhanno was married to Punnu. Punnu died 40 years back and after his death Smt. Dhanno contracted 'Karewa' marriage with Gainda. According to the plaintiffs Smt. Dhanno by marriying Gainda forfeited all her rights in the property of Punnu and so this way three brothers, namely, Krishna, Gainda, and Hari Ram succeeded to estate left by Sh. Dasondi in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd share each, as occupancy tenant and subsequently on coming into enforcement of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') they became owners of the property and have been cultivating and still cultivating and so entries in the revenue record showing Smt. Dahnno to be owner of 1/20th share being widow of Gainda and 1/4th share being widow of Punnu are liable to be corrected.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3rd share i.e. 1/3 share each in the suit land ? OPP 2. Whether defendant No. 1 contracted 'Karewa' with Sh. Gainda after the death of Sh. Punnu, if so, what is its effect ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.