HIRA DEVI Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was defendant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1979 passed by the District Judge, Patiala, whereby he has upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.12.1977 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rajpura decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents have filed the suit for declaration alleging in the plaint that Goverdhan Dass plaintiff, Ram Sarup and Sat Pal defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Jagan Nath respondent No. 1 and the said Jagan Nath is related with Raja Ram, son of Tilak Ram as collateral by fourth degree. It is further the case of the respondent that Raja Ram did not leave behind any other legal heir except the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) who are his nearest heirs. The plaintiffs further alleged that Manbhari mother of appellant/defendant No. 1 had no concern whatsoever with Raja Ram or the plaintiff. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that Raja Ram who was the sole owner of the suit land had executed a will dated 14.8.1958 in favour of Goverdhan Dass plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) during his life time. The said Raja Ram died on 24.9.1958 without leaving behind any issue and widow. After the death of Raja Ram, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 came into possession of the suit land as owners being legal heirs of deceased Raja Ram and since then they are in possession of the suit land as such. It is the case of the plaintiff respondents that Manbhari, deceased mother of defendant-respondent No. 1 claiming herself to be the nearest heir of Raja Ram deceased in collusion with the revenue officials got the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her favour from Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 11.6.1959 and against the said order, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred an appeal and the case was remanded and thereafter, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of respondents on 28.9.1964. However, Manbhari preferred an appeal before the Collector and the matter was again remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajpura vide order dated 2.2.1968 and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajpura sanctioned mutation in favour of Manbhari of the inheritance of Raja Ram on 11.3.1970 and on account of the same, Manbhari is threatening to interfere in their possession of the suit land. The said order of mutation by the revenue official in favour of Manbhari is illegal and not binding upon them. It is also claimed by the respondent that Manbhari could not claim to be the widow of any son of Raja Ram. Alternatively, it was stated that in case Manbhari is proved to be widow of sister/s son of Raja Ram deceased, even then Jagan Nath respondent No. 1 being the nearest collateral of Raja Ram deceased is a preferential heir qua Manbhari and as such Manbhari has no right whatsoever to claim inheritance of the property of deceased Raja Ram. Since Manbhari has died during the pendency of suit, therefore, her daughter Hira Devi was impleaded in the case as defendant. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 refused to admit the claim of the appellant on 20.3.1970, hence they have a cause of action to file the suit.

(3.) THE trial Court on appreciation of evidence under issue No. 1 held that it stands conclusively proved on record that Jagan Nath, respondent-plaintiff is a collateral of Raja Ram deceased by fourth degree and therefore, he becomes agnate of Raja Ram deceased. Under issue No. 2, it was held that Raja Ram deceased did not make a valid will in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as propounded by them. Under issue No. 3, it was held that defendant No. 1 is a daughter of Manbhari deceased who was the widow of Ram Partap sister's son of Raja Ram deceased and, therefore, she was the cognate of deceased Raja Ram.