KANSHI Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Shrimati Ramrati and Shrimati Anguri are the daughters of respondent No. 2 Ranjit son of Neta. Respondent No. 2 gifted agricultural land measuring 44K-17M situated at village Jai Jaiwanti, Tehsil Jind by way of registered gift deed dated 19-3-66 in favour of respondent No. 1. He also executed another gift deed on 21-7-66 and gifted agricultural land measuring 202K-7M in favour of respondent No. 1. After the gift deeds were registered, respondent No. 1 got mutations Nos. 183 dated 23-4-66 and 192 of 1966 sanctioned in his favour. The appellants contends that the original plaintiff-appellant No. 1 (Kanshi son of Tuhia) is the son of the real brother of father of Ranjit (respondent No. 2). They also contend that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of Ranjit and will inherit his property on his death, being his reversioners. It is the further contention of appellants that the property which is alleged to have been gifted is not the self-acquired property of respondent No. 2 and that it is inherited by him from their common ancestors and therefore, the plaintiffs have right over the said property along with respondent No. 2. They also contended that the gift deeds are null and void qua the rights of inheritance of the appellants and other reversioners. The appellants also contended that they are Jats by caste and do cultivation work, reside in the village, perform karewa and follow the customary laws of Punjab and Haryana and according to the custom, no person has right to alienate the ancestral property of anyone without necessity. They also contend that such transfer is void and ineffective qua the rights of the appellants and other reversioners. They also contend that the gift deeds were never acted upon and these have been obtained fraudulently and are fictitious and have no existence in the eye of law. They also contend that the donee has never got possession of the suit land, nor is he in possession of the same and that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the gifts even if so exist, are illegal under the customary law which is applicable to the parties. It is also contended that respondent No. 2 had come for getting the gift deeds in favour of his daughters i.e. appellants Nos. 2 and 3 by asking defendant No. 1 to accept the gift deeds on behalf of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 but defendant No. 1 fraudulently got the gift deeds executed in his favour. They also contend that respondent No. 1 is Bhanja (sister's son) of respondent No. 2.

(2.) The prayer of plaintiff-appellants is that the impugned gift deeds be declared as void and ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs and other reversioners and in case, respondent No. 2, has made any other gift of aforesaid property or any part thereof, the same may also be declared illegal on the above grounds so that it may not effect the rights of plaintiffs and other reversioners. It is further contended that respondent No. 1 was threatening to sell the said property on the basis of gift deeds and mutation in his favour and that the respondents have refused to admit the rights of the plaintiffs two days prior to the filing of the suit.

(3.) Defendant-respondent No. 2 filed the written statement practically admitting the contentions of the plaintiffs. He has stated that he has not gifted any property and the gift deeds were got written fraudulently. He has contended that he does not know about the mutation and he has denied the contentions of para 6 of the pleadings in which it is stated that the defendants have refused to admit the rights of the plaintiff two days prior to the filing of the suit. He admitted rest of the averments made in the plaint.