BIJA RAM Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. He filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the teamed Additional District Judge, Ambala in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1981 dated 13. 3. 1986.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that it belonged to his father Sant Ram who died on 23. 10. 1973 leaving behind him the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and one Kukandi, who is the father of defendants 2 and 3 and his father Sant Ram has not executed any Will and, therefore, he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below held that the suit property originally belonged to one Badama and Bhura. On the death of Badama, Sant Ram inherited the share of Badama and the share of Bhura was inherited by Jasmat and Jasmat died leaving behind his widow Nihali and Nihali entered into Karewa marriage with Santa and on her death Santa inherited the land of Nihali. Thus the entire property was inherited by Sant Ram from Badama and Bhura. Thus Sant Ram did not get the property through his ancestors. He got the property through Badama and Nihali. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of Sant Ram. Since Sant Ram has inherited the property not from his father, but as reversioner to Badama and Nihali, it cannot be said that the property in the hands of Sant Ram was ancestral property. Therefore, it is a self-acquired property. I am, therefore, in agreement with the Courts below that the suit property is not ancestral property of Sant Ram. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim a share in the property on the basis that it is ancestral property.