BATTO AND ORS. Vs. SMT. PUNIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the parties are Gaur Brahmans of district Gurgaon. The last male -holder was Bidhu who died on the 19th February, 1940, leaving behind his widow Mst. Punian, mother Mst. Bhuri and sister Batto. On his death the land was mutated in the name of his widow. She continued in possession till a mutation was entered on the 15th November, 1952, in favour of Bhuri the mother of Bidhu on the ground that Mst. Punian had contracted a Karewa marriage with Tirlok Chand. Bhuri gifted the land to the fourth degree collateral of her son Bidhu on the 23rd April, 1964. The present suit was filed by Punian for possession of her husband's estate on the ground that Tirlok Chand, Defendant No. 3, who is the son of Khemi. committed rape on her and thereby she became pregnant and gave birth to a child. Thereafter the Defendants who are the donees, turned her out of their house and got the land mutated in favour of Mst. Bhuri on the ground that the Plaintiff had contracted Karewa marriage with Tirlok Chand. Mst. Bhuri died during the pendency of the suit and her daughter Batto was impleaded as her legal representative.

(2.) THE Defendants in their written statement took the position that the Plaintiff was of immoral character and had contracted Karewa with one Sukhi of Gailab; that she was a contesting party to mutation and therefore, estopped from bringing the present suit; that the Defendants had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession; and that by remarriage and in any case by reason of her unchastity, the Plaintiff had forfeited the right to retain her husband's estate. It was also pointed out that a suit had been filed by Tirlok Chand previously and he had obtained a declaratory decree that Plaintiff had not contracted Karewa marriage with him and the child born to the Plaintiff was not his. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

(3.) THE matter regarding estoppel, remarriage and adverse possession are not open to review in second appeal. The decision of lower appellate Court on these matters is based on evidence. No error of law has been committed. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has rightly not agitated the same in second appeal No arguments were advanced on the question of limitation.