GURDAS @ GURDAS SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant is in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby suit of the plaintiff seeking declaration of having become absolute owner in possession of the land described therein (hereinafter called "the suit land"), has been decreed and counter claim set up, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that Kailash Devi widow of Latwar through attorney-Prem Singh instituted the suit seeking aforementioned relief on the premise that Jai Gopal had two sons, namely, Latwar and Daulat Singh. Kailash Devi was the widow of Latwar. Latwar died in the year 1932, whereas, Jai Gopal died in the year 1941, in essence, Latwar predeceased his father Jai Gopal as he died in the year 193 Daulat Singh left behind one son Gurdas Singh, defendant. The plaintiff obtained life estate in the property of Jai Gopal in dispute on the premise that she had become the owner by virtue of a compromise arrived at in a civil suit No.4 of 1938 and in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as "1956 Act") had acquired the title in the property. The plaintiff came into possession of the suit land and had been in possession throughout "In Lieu of Maintenance" before coming into force 1956 Act and in alternative, it was set up that in case, the plaintiff had not been proved to be in possession as heir or "In Lieu of Maintenance", she had become the absolute owner of the suit land. The plaintiff had been in continuos possession of the suit land. The cause of action accrued to institute the suit only when defendants started approaching the revenue authorities for sanctioning of the mutation, on the basis, of inheritance.

(3.) The suit aforementioned was contested by the appellantdefendant by raising numerous preliminary objections. It was stated that plaintiff was not absolute owner of the suit land as she got "life estate" with regard to 12 kanals out of the suit land. The agreement between the plaintiff and Jai Gopal was only in respect of 12 kanals of land. The agreement has not been proved or brought on record and after the commencement of 1956 Act, plaintiff was recorded as "limited owner" as per the provisions of Section 14(2) of 1956 Act. In the alternative set up a counter claim that defendants had become owners in possession qua share of the suit land.