PREM KAUR Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court whereby on appeal by the plaintiff, judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit has been set aside and inconsequence thereof, suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) LAND in suit was owned by Babu Singh son of Sunder Singh who died in or about the year 1976. Sadhu Singh, his brother filed suit alleging that Babu Singh was unmarried and died issueless and being the brother, he is the only legal heir of Babu Singh, deceased. He alleged that defendant, Prem Kaur, although has got no concern whatsoever with the land in dispute, but in collusion with the Revenue Officer, got mutation of the land entered in her name by alleging herself to be widow of Babu Singh, deceased. Plaintiff alleged that he requested Patwari Halqa many a times to enter mutation in his name, but Patwari has been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 65 Bighas 12 Biswas comprised in Khasra numbers fully described in the heading of the plaint. Upon notice of the suit, defendant appeared and filed written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that Babu Singh though died issueless, but was survived by Prem Kaur, defendant, being his widow. Defendant contended that Babu Singh had entered into Kareva and duly got executed and registered a Krevanama on 19. 1. 1961. She alleged that both lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such by all concerned. She submitted that mutation has rightly been sanctioned in her name. She thus, prayed that suit be dismissed. Plaintiff filed replication controverting the stand taken by the defendant and reiterating the one taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) It is contended by Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendant, that evidence of the material witnesses recorded at the trial is not diametrically opposed to the pleadings as has been opined by the first appellate Court. It is contended that evidence on record discloses that deceased, Babu Singh, took defendant as his wife 5 years prior to the execution of Karevanama and this fact is so recorded in the Karevanama dated 19. 1. 1961. Counsel contended that because of long cohabitation, trial Court rightly drew presumption in favour of valid marriage. Against this, it is contended by counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff that a marriage not solemnised in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies is not valid. In this regard, reference is made to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the Counsel, in the present case, evidence in this regard is hopelessly lacking.