KAILASH Vs. KESHANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgements and decrees passed by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court; whereby suit filed by the present appellants was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that they were the owners in possession of the land bearing Khewat No.115 Khatoni No.136, Rect. No.24, Killa No.4 (8-0), 5 (4-6), 6 (3-19), Rect. No.29 Killa No.19/2 (1-1) 22 (8-0) 23 (8-0), Rect. No.30 Killa No.13 (8-0), 14 (8-0), Rect No.34 Killa No.8 (8-0), and Rect. No.34 Killa No.9(8-0), 18(6-15) total land measuring 72 Kanals 1 marla having â .. "rd share in it i.e. 24 Kanal 0 marla and khewat No.95/115 Rect. 138 (0-12), having share of â ..â„¢th i.e. 2 marla and khewat khata No.78/96 Rect. No.24 Killa No. 7 (8-0), Rect. No.29 Killa No.21 (8-0), Rect. No.30 Killa No.15/2 (2-8), 23 (8-0), 24 (8-0), Rect. No.48 Killa No.21 (8-0), Rect. No.61 Killa No.1/2/2 (2-0) total measuring 44 kanals 7 marlas having one â .. "rd share i.e. 14 kanals 16 marlas. Kehwat/Khata No.79/97 Rect. No.357 (0-2), 358 (0-2), total measuring 1 kanals 4 marlas having â ..â„¢th share i.e. one marla. Khewat/Khata No.83/103 Rect. No.62 Killa No.26 (1-5), total 1 kanal 5 marla having â .. "ºth share i.e. 3 marla, khewat/khata No.94/114 rect. No.30 killa No.20 (5-16), 21 (6-0), 22 (8-0), rect. No.33 Killa No.1 (1-16), 2/1 (5-18), Rect. No.61 Killa No.2 (8- 0), Rect. No. 65 killa No. 4 (8-0), 8 (8-0) 14/1 (6-14) 18 (8-0), 23/2/1 (1-8) measuring 67 Kanals 1 marla having â .. "rd share i.e. 22 kanals 10 marlas. Thus the total area come to be 61 kanals 22 marlas situated in village Chhapra Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon. The plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and 3 have inherited the suit land from Giasi after his death on 30.08.1984. It is further claimed that Giasi Ram had four sons namely, Ganga Ram, Ratti Ram, Kishan Singh and Sia Ram. It is the further claim of the plaintiffs that Sia Ram was married to Keshanti-respondent No.1. However, Sia Ram expired on 26.11.1972 and Keshanti remarried Ratti Ram. Out of the marriage of Ratti Ram with Keshanti at least two children were born. When Giasi Ram expired on 30.08.1984 respondent-Keshanti had already remarried Ratti Ram. Therefore, she had lost her right to inherit any share in the properties left by Giasi Ram; being the wife of the pre-deceased son, who had remarried before the succession opened. Therefore, it was claimed by the plaintiffs that Keshanti-respondent had forfeited her rights of inheritance after the second marriage. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs that after the death of Giasi, the mutation was entered on 27.12.1984. In the mutation even Keshanti was recorded as one of the successors. Therefore, the plaintiffs challenged the right of Keshanti to inherit and also the mutation entered in the revenue authorities by filing the present suit.

(3.) The defendant No.1-Keshanti denied the facts mentioned in the plaint. She denied that she ever re-married to Ratti Ram. She claimed that she is legally entitled to inherit the property of her father-in-law being widow of the pre-deceased son.