GOPAL SINGH Vs. MEHNGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur partly reversing on appeal the decision of the trial court decreeing the plaintiffs suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of the land in dispute.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the land in dispute was inherited by Mst. Naraini from her husband. The plaintiffs along with some others i.e. defendants No. 2 to 4 are the heirs of the husband of Mst. Naraini and on Naraini's death they would have succeeded to the land in dispute on the 1st April, 1926. Mst. Naraini is alleged to have made a gift in favour of Mehanga Singh, defendant. A suit was brought by the collaterals of Mst. Naraini's husband challenging the gift. In that suit Mehanga Singh took the plea that he was adopted by Mst. Naraini and he also relied on the gift. The Subordinate Judge found that Mehnga Singh had not been adopted and that in spite of the gift, the land remained in possession of the reversioners of Mst. Naraini's husband, who were in possession of the same before the gift. In this situation it was held that the gift would not affect the reversionary rights of the reversioners of the husband of Mst. Naraini. In the revenue records land continued to be shown under the ownership of Mehnga Singh. The present dispute has arisen because after consolidation, Mehnga Singh took possession of the land. The suit has been filed for possession by some of the co -sharers. The done pleaded that the plaintiff were only entitled to 1/2 of the land and the other reversioners who were entitled to the remaining one half had not sued for possession of the same. The trial court decreed the suit excepting 1/16th share of the land in dispute on the ground that that part of the land did not belong to Mst. Naraini On appeal the lower appellate Court held that 2/17 instead of 1/15 did not belong to Mst. Naraini and has modified the decision of the trial court to that extent. There is no appeal against the decision of the lower appellate Court, so far as the dismissal of the suit 2/17 is concerned. The lower appellate Court, however, dismissed the plaintiffs suit qua half of land, qua which it held that the reversioners of Mst. Naraini were entitled to succeed. In other words, the trial court had decreed the suit qua 14/15 and dismissed it qua 1/15. The lower appellate Court maintained the decree qua half of 15/17 and dismissed the suit qua 2/17 plus the other half of 15/17.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial court with this modification that plaintiffs will be entitled to possession of 15/17 of the land in dispute. There will be no order as to costs.