KAMLA Vs. DAYA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom suit for declaration was dismissed by the Trial Court but was decreed in appeal.

(2.) One Gorkha son of Ram Rattan was owner of 5 Kanals 8 Marlas of land. He died 4/5 years prior to the institution of the suit which was filed on 20th October, 1975, leaving behind two widows named Buji and Sarti. Plaintiff Daya Kaur is the daughter of Gorkha from his widow Sarti. She filed the present suit for her share in the suit land jointly inherited by her and the two widows of her father Gorkha. Defendant is the son of Ami Lal who was the brother of Gorkha deceased. Since he had taken forcible possession of the suit land hence the present suit was filed for declaration and possession. The suit was contested on the plea that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Gorkha from Sarti. According to the defendant, she was the daughter of one Jai Lal. He also pleaded that Smt. Buji widow of Gorkha had executed a will in his favour in lieu of the services rendered by him to her and so after the death of Smt. Buji he had become the owner of the entire land left by Gorkha and Smt. Buji. The main contest between the parties was as to whether the plaintiff was the daughter of Sarti and Gorkha as alleged in the plaint or not. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was the daughter of Gorkha for Sarti. In view of that finding plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers reversed the said finding of the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that it stands fully proved that the plaintiff is the daughter of Sarti and Gorkha as claimed in the plaint. In view of that finding the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same the defendant has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellate contended that the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Gorkha from Sarti has been reversed in appeal illegally and are arbitrary. According to the learned counsel there was no cogent evidence to prove the said relationship.