RATI RAM Vs. BASANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree dated 03.01.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul, allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.1979 passed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Rewari, is impugned in this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are like this :- The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for possession of 1/6th share of the agricultural land measuring 348 Kanals 14 Marlas alongwith rights in Nal Chah, well, Gatwar etc. situated in the revenue estate of village Berli Khurd, Tehsil Rewari, against defendant Nos. 1 to 10. They claimed share for themselves as also for defendant Nos. 11 to 31. It is alleged in the plaint that one Har Narain was ancestor of the plaintiffs. He had three more brothers, namely, Jag Ram, Jas Ram and Mukh Ram. All the three brothers died issueless and Har Narain became owner of the suit property. Har Narain had four sons, namely, Udmi, Bhoru, Shadi and Murli. Murli died during the life time of Har Narain. Murli had two sons, namely Chhaju and Chiranji, who were minors at the time of death of Murli. One Sheo Lal son of Anta and Makhan son of Chunna got their names entered in the revenue record showing themselves to be sons and heirs of Har Narain. It is further alleged that their names were entered in the revenue record but the possession of the land remained with the descendants of Har Narain. Sheo Lal and Makhan applied for partition, which was stayed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon as in the meanwhile their title was challenged. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon, allowed the parties to get the question of title decided in the Civil Court. The descendant of Har Narain i.e. the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that Sheo Lal and Makhan are not the sons of Har Narain and were not the co-sharers in the suit land. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.1929. In an appeal preferred, the learned District Judge Gurgaon, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, vide his judgment and decree dated 21.07.1930. Second Appeal was preferred by Sheo Lal and Makhan before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the case was remanded giving opportunity to Sheo Lal etc. to lead evidence in rebuttal before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, who was seized of the case. On remand, the parties entered into a compromise and a compromise decree came to be passed. In terms of this compromise, Sheo Lal was given limited right to use the land in question without any right to alienate or mortgage the same. It was further agreed that on the death of Sheo Lal without any male lineal, his surviving wife would also have the limited right in the land, which comprises of 1/6th share of the total estate of Har Narain. Under the compromise, it was also stipulated that after the death of the widow in the absence of a male lineal, the land will revert back to the plaintiffs i.e. the heirs of Har Narain, who will be entitled to take possession and Makhan will have no right over the land. It may be relevant to reproduce the extract of the compromise decree, which reads as under :-

(3.) THIS judgment and decree became the subject matter of challenge before the learned District Judge, Narnaul, who has reversed the same. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court as regards the right of Sheo Lal under the compromise is concerned, by holding that Sheo Lal and Makhan were entered as sons of Har Narain and, thus, they had pre- existing right and the compromise decree cannot restrict their rights. The learned First Appellate Court also ruled that by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act, the limited estate of Sheo Lal is enlarged into full fledged ownership rights by operation of the law and thus, the plaintiffs could not enforce the compromise decree against Smt. Chhimli and her heirs were entitled to inherit the property of Smt. Chhimli under the Act aforesaid. The learned First Appellate Court, accordingly, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants.