AJIT SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Pritam Kaur responded had filed a decree suit against the defendant-appellant for possession of the house and land in suit alleging that the property in question originally belonged to her father Sajjan Singh and that on his death his two widows Mst. Labh Kaur and Mst. Chand Kaur, jointly succeeded to the property left by her deceased father. On the death of Mst. Labh Kaur, Mst. Chand Kaur got the land and the house in question. Mst. Chand Kaur, according to the plaintiff, passed away on the 17th of July, 1949 and since the property was self-acquired property of her father Sajjan Singh, she is the preferential heir as against defendant Nos. 1 to 7 who have forcibly and without any right occupied the property in suit.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 7 denied that the plaintiff was the daughter of Sajjan Singh deceased and claimed that being collaterals within the 5th degree they had a preferential right to inherit the land which was alleged to be ancestral qua them. They further pleaded that the house in dispute belonged to them and that in any case even this property was not a self-acquired property of Sajjan Singh deceased with the result that the plaintiff had no right to file the present suit. Plea of limitation was also raised by the defendants. The trial Court on the 27th of June, 1957 held that the plaintiff was the daughter of Sajjan Singh deceased, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 were his second degree collaterals and that the house in question being self-acquired property of Sajjan Singh was not ancestral qua the defendants. With respect to the land in dispute the trial Court held part of the land to be ancestral and part non-ancestral. In the result the Court below granted the plaintiff a decree with respect to non-ancestral property in dispute. Against this decree Ajit Singh defendant a collateral of Sajjan Singh deceased has preferred regular first appeal which had been admitted by this Court in September, 1957. An interim ex parte stay order was also obtained by the appellant when the appeal was admitted. The respondent Smt. Pritam Kaur has now applied through Chaudhry Roop Chand Advocate for vacating the ex parte stay order.

(3.) Chaudhry Roop Chand, learned counsel for the decree-holder respondent, submits that an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay of proceedings under the decree appealed from nor should execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from it. He contends that unless sufficient cause is shown, the appellate Court should not order stay of execution.