SAHOON AND ANOTHER Vs. HASINA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that Sahoon and Farukh both sons of Dindar son of Ghutmal, residents of village Balai, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat, had brought a suit against defendants - Smt Hasina-widow, Vakila, Shakila minor daughters of Kashmira son of Rehman, Mubin son of Usman, seeking possession of 31 Kanal 15 marla of land situated at village Balai, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Mewat. In addition to that they craved for issuance of a declaration that Will dated 29.12.2009 executed by Rehman in favour of defendants is illegal, null and void 1 of 12 and without any legal necessity, besides being in contravention of agricultural custom of the parties.

(2.) As per version of the plaintiffs, Rehman son of Ghutmal, since deceased, was earlier owner of the suit land; that he had not left behind any male issue and rather was survived by his wife Smt. Nijarbi, daughters, grand daughters and widow of his predeceased son in the year 2010; that plaintiffs were sons of Deendar brother of Rehman and were his collaterals and successors, as such they had a right to inherit the estate left by Rehman; that the suit land was ancestral property of the plaintiffs in the hands of Rehman, which was inherited by him in natural course of succession; the parties belong to Meos caste, a dominant agricultural tribe of erstwhile State of Punjab and now Haryana, with agriculture as the main source of their income and they are governed by agricultural custom of Punjab and Haryana and of District Gurgaon, now Mewat in the matter of succession and alienation etc.; that as per such custom, the property in the hands of Meo proprietor is inherited by his son, his widow in absence of son and after her by the nearest collaterals; that the daughters have no right of succession in the property either ancestral or non-ancestral in the hands of said Meo proprietor; that the property is inherited by his widow in the absence of sons as a limited owner or life estate and on her death, it is inherited by the nearest collaterals of the said property; that a Meo proprietor cannot alienate/transfer his ancestral property in any manner to any person without any legal necessity or without the consent of all the successors and any 2 of 12 alienation or transfer made in contravention of the existing custom is illegal, null and void and does not affect the rights of his successors to succeed to the said property on his death. Inter alia in the plaint, the plaintiffs contended that some time earlier, they came to know that defendants No. 1 to 4 had succeeded in obtaining a Will bearing document No. 6 dated 29.12.2009 in respect of the suit land from Rehman. According to the plaintiffs Rehman had not executed the Will moreover, he was not competent to do so. The Will is a result of fraud, mis-representation and collusion and had been obtained secretly without being in knowledge of the plaintiffs. When the defendants refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs, they filed the suit in question.

(3.) On notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement, contesting the suit controverting the material assertions in the plaint, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi of plaintiffs to institute it, furthermore, denying that any cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs to bring the suit. On merits, the defendants conceded that Rehman deceased was owner in possession of the suit land earlier and when he departed from this mortal world in the year 2010, he had not left any male issue and as such his estate devolved upon his wife Smt. Nijari, daughters and granddaughters and widow of his predeceased son. However, the defendants denied that plaintiffs were nearest collaterals and successors of Rehman or that they had any legal right to inherit his estate. The defendants further refuted the 3 of 12 assertions that the land in the hands of Rehman was having nature of ancestral property, rather according to them, Rehman was absolute owner in possession of the suit land. However, the defendants conceded that they were Meos by caste and were governed by agricultural custom in the matter of alienation, Will etc. According to defendants, property of a sonless proprietor is inherited by his widow as a full owner and she has every right to deal with the property inherited by her in any manner she feels like. The defendants denied that daughters have no right to succeed to the property either ancestral or non-ancestral and that a Meo proprietor cannot alienate his ancestral property in any manner to any person without legal necessity or without the consent of all his successors. With regard to the Will, impugned by the plaintiffs, the defendants claimed that it was a legal and valid documents and testator was fully competent to execute it. On the basis of said Will mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4. According to the defendants, as per custom prevalent amongst agricultural tribes of District Gurgaon, alienation in lieu of services, as well as to any person or relative with whom the alienor had special love and affection, is recognized; that defendant No.1 was widow of predeceased son of Rehman and defendants No. 2 and 3 are her daughters, whereas defendant No.4 is daughter's son of Rehman; that Rehman and his wife Smt. Nijarbi were pleased with services rendered by the defendants, they were residing with defendant No.4 and his wife, who were rendering services in respect of the land as well as harvesting the crop and also 4 of 12 day to day household chores, therefore the defendants have rightly inherited the suit land on the basis of Will dated 29.12.2009. According to the defendants in the presence of Smt. Nijarbi and defendant No.1, the plaintiffs do no have any right of inheritance. In the end, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.