ALLAH BAKASH Vs. NASARBI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allah Bakash filed a suit for possession inter alia contending that the plaintiff and defendant Smt. Nasarbi were Meos by caste which community is predominantly agriculturist, and are governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession. It was contended that Smt. Nasarbi inherited the life estate from Rehmat being the widow of his predeceased son, could not alienate the property in dispute, and adversely affect the rights of Allah Bakash reversioner. Sale by her was challenged being without legal necessity, consideration and without the consent of the reversioners. Thus the alienation made by her in favour of Babu Lal was alleged to be void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Possession of the land in dispute was sought.

(2.) The facts were controverted by the defendants. The plaintiff being the heir of Rehmat was challenged. The ancestral nature of the land, custom, as well as right of alienation and succession was also challenged. It was contended that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata; the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction and the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure etc.

(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the collateral of Rehmat and such had locus standi to file the suit. It was found that the land in dispute was not ancestral property of Rehmat qua the plaintiff, the parties being Meos by caste and governed by agricultural custom of the tribe as prevalent in Gurgaon District. The trial Court after noticing the judgements in Charan Singh Harnam Singh and another v. Gurdial Singh Harnam Singh and another, 1961 AIR(P&H) 301 Mt. Mel Kaur v. Daulat Ram, 1935 AIR(Lah) 312 Gurditta Ram v. Ram Kaur, 1952 AIR(P&H) 111, Amin Lal v. Smt Ram Piari etc,1971 CurLJ 43, and Smt. Chambeli v. Smt. Kago,1967 PunLR 647 and referring to para 25 of the Ratigan's Digest on the Customary Law, held that the parties were governed by Customary law of Gurgaon District as prevalent amongst all the agricultural tribes including Meos, Widow of predeceased son in also entitled to collateral succession and so the plaintiff is not a preferential heir to the estate of Rehamt deceased qua defendant No. 1. The said finding has not been challenged before me.