JASWANT KAUR Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Jaswant Kaur. defendant, has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Farid-kot. dated Dec. 4, 1963, by which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in favour of Major Harpal Singh, plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Gurnam Singh, deceased, was the owner of the property in dispute and other properties. He executed a will in respect of his entire property on June 5, 1938 and bequeathed half of his landed property and some houses in favour of Major Harpal Singh, his younger brother and the remaining moveable and immoveable property in favour of Smt. Jaswant Kaur, subject to the condition that she would utilise the income of the property during her lifetime for the purpose of maintaining herself and her two daughters, and after her death, that would revert to the plaintiff. Gurnam Singh got the aforesaid will registered on June 6, 1938, at Kasauli. He died on June 8, 1938, leaving behind Smt. Jaswant Kaur widow two minor daughters, and Major harpal Singh, brother.

(3.) SMT. Jaswant Kaur executed five instruments regarding the property in dispute, namely, three gift deeds, Exhibits P-22, P-23 and P-24 in favour of her two daughters, one sale deed, Exhibit P-25, in favour of defendant No. 4 and one mortgage deed, Exhibit P-26 in favour of defendants 5 and 6. Major Harpal singh, plaintiff, instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that all the alienations effected by Smt. Jaswant Kaur, were illegal and in excess of the rights conferred, upon her by the will and consequently these are not binding on the plaintiff. He also made a prayer for grant of mandatory injunction restraining the said defendant from making further alienations of the property in her possession. The suit wag contested by Smt. Jaswant Kaur, defendant, inter alia, on the ground that by virtue of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the estate conferred on her was enlarged and she became full owner of the property. The trial Court held that she did not become owner by virtue of the provisions of the Act. Consequently it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Smt, Jaswant Kaur, defendant, went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. She has come up in second appeal to this Court.