HAWA SINGH Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) According to the plaintiff/appellant, one Natia alias Nanhar had five sons-Har Lal, Chandgi, Jubti alias Teja, Shish Ram and Jai Lal. The plaintiff is son of Jai Lal. The contesting defendants-respondents are the daughter and sons of Jubti and Sish Ram. The dispute is with respect to the share of Chandgi son of Nathia alias Nanhar, who admittedly died issueless on 13/3/1969. The claim of the plaintiff/appellant-Hawa Singh is that he was in joint cultivating possession with Chandgi with respect to his share of lands and as such after his death he was entitled for the 1/4 share which is share of Chandgi out of the suit property. He claimed that the mutation order dtd. 13/3/1969 opening mutation no.434 in favour of Jugti alias Teja, mutation No.417 with respect to inheritance of Sish Ram and Mutation No.568, are void, illegal and have been obtained fraudulently and, thus, they are required to be set aside to the extent of 1/4th share of the plaintiff as mentioned above. The plaintiff/appellant also sought that the defendants may be restrained from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from dispossessing him from the suit property or alienating or incumbering in any manner to the extent of 1/4th share of the plaintiff/appellant.

(3.) The defendant no.1, 6 and 7 appeared and filed their joint written statement taking stand that the father of plaintiff has already died way back in 1956, i.e. even prior to the death of Chandgi and as such he did not have any right to get a share in the property. Accordingly, the order of mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in accordance with law and does not require any interference.