DALIP SINGH Vs. MST. KISHONO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is regular second appeal of Plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Patiala, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the property in dispute and the gift made by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the donees was void. The parties are descended from a common ancestor and the last male holder was Kishni's husband Bishen Singh. There were three other branches of the common ancestor and the Plaintiff represents one branch and the donees other two branches. The parties are jats governed by agricultural custom. On the death of Bishen Singh, the last male holder, his widow Kishni succeeded to his property. Mutation was entered in her name in 1931. In 1950, consolidation proceedings were going on in the village. It is claimed on behalf of the Plaintiff that Mst. Kishni surrendered her estate in favour of the three branches who were the nearest reversioners of her deceased husband. In support of surrender, reliance has been placed upon Exhibit P/l which is a copy of an extract from the register of the decisions recording the statements of the right -holders before the Consolidation Panchayat and the decision of the Consolidation Officer. The document is in the nature of a resolution incorporating the decision and is also a record of the statement of the party concerned. In Exhibit P/l, the statement of Plaintiff Dalip Singh was recorded wherein he stated that apart from his own land, one -third land of Mst. Kishni be joined with his land. It was said that she was willing that one -third share should be consolidated with the lands of the respective reversioners. The words which call for comments are (1) raqba Dalip Singh ke sath laga dia jawe and (2) meri tamam arrazi in har seh haqdaran ke sath bahi -ssa barabar shamil kar di jawe. One of the conditions was that she was to receive from Dalip Singh ten maunds of grain every year and in case Dalip Singh would not give her the grain, then she was at liberty to take her land back from whichever side she liked.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's contention in this case was that Exhibit P/l was a deed of relinquishment by which Mst. Kishni had completely effected herself and had surrendered all her rights. This contention of the Plaintiff was contested by the Respondents in this Court. This was also the principal point at issue between the parties before the lower courts. On parties' pleadings, the following issues were framed: -

(3.) 'Surrender' is to be distinguished from 'abandonment', the former is indicative of consent to resign, in favour of the reversioner, or giving up a right or a thing to another by free will. But 'abandonment' imports the idea, that the thing or the right given up is not deemed to be of any value, and it is not giving up to any particular person. Another term usually applied is of 'merger' which is a wider term than surrender. A merger takes place when two estates are united in the hands of one e.g. reversioner. But surrender is the resignation of a particular estate for life to one in the immediate reversion.