RATTAN CHAND Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.12.1986 in Regular First Appeal No. 810 of 1977, where he held that Smt. Raj Rani was not legally wedded wife of Parkash Chand and in fact Smt. Shanti Devi was his legally wedded wife and further that Smt. Shanti Devi and her daughter Guddi Sunita @ Kanta were entitled to succeed to the properties of Parkash Chand to the exclusion of Rattan Singh. Facts briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) One Parkash Chand of Moga Jit Singh was the owner of the properties shown in paras A, B, C, D, F, G & H of the heading of the plaint. He was holding mortgagee rights of two shops shown in para-E of the heading of the plaint. He was also the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos: 1496, 1423, 1491, 1494, 1500, 1499 mentioned in jamabandi for the year 1967-68 situated in Moga Jit Singh. Claiming themselves to be the mother, wife and daughter of Parkash Chand, Smt. Kulwanti, Shanti Devi and Guddi Sunita @ Chander Kanta respectively instituted suit for declaration in the Court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Moga that they are owners of properties shown in paras A, B, C, D, F, G & H of the heading of the plaint. They also claimed possession of the portion of the house shown as ABCD in sketch No. 1 and a portion of the house shown ABCD in plan No. 2 and land bearing Khasra Nos. 1496,1423,1491,1494,1500,1499 mentioned in jamabandi for the year 1967-68 situated in village Moga Jit Singh. They alleged that defendant Smt. Raj Rani was married to one Ram Sarup of village Hathur, Tehsil Jagraon who is alive. Ram Sarup never divorced her. During the life time of Ram Sarup, Raj Rani could not contract another marriage. She was his keep and living in concubinage with him. He may have called her as his wife on account of her association with him as concubine. He never created any interest in favour of Raj Rani in the properties in suit, properties held by Raj Rani whether as purchase or as mortgagee were on account of her being benamidar of those properties. No right or interest was created in her and Parkash Chand was the real owner of those properties and she was only a benamidar. The entire consideration for benami transactions was borne by Parkash Chand. Smt. Kulwanti and Ors. arrayed Raj Rani's husband-Ram Sarup and her brother Rattan Singh as defendants after the death of Raj Rani. Rattan Singh was arrayed as he was pleading some Will in his favour. After the death of Parkash Chand, Raj Rani took forcible possession of two houses marked BACD in plan Nos. 1 and 2 as described in paras A and B of the heading of the plaint. She took forcible possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 1496,1423,1491,1494,1500 and 1499 ibid. In nutshell, Smt. Kulwanti and Ors. claimed properties in suit on account of succession to Parkash Chand being his mother, wife and daughter. Mother, wife and daughter are Class- I heirs of a male dying intestate in view of schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(3.) Raj Rani-defendant contested the suit of the plaintiffs urging that she was the legally wedded wife of Parkash Chand and that she was never married to Ram Sarup. So far as Smt. Shanti Devi is concerned, she was not his wife, nor could she be his wife during the subsistence of her (Raj Rani's) marriage with Parkash Chand. It was admitted that Smt. Kulwanti was Parkash Chand's mother. She married, Parkash Chand about 27/28 years ago and she cohabited with him all along as his wife. It was denied that Guddi Sunita @ Chander Kanta is the offspring of Parkash Chand. It was urged that Parkash Chand was owner of house marked A, motor- cycle, car, pistol, gun and half share of the land bearing killa Nos. 1496,1423,1491, 1494,1500,1499. Rest of the properties were her ownership alone. In these premises, Smt. Raj Rani claimed entitlement to the properties left behind by Parkash Chand in equal shares with Smt. Kulwanti.