HAKAM DIN Vs. GULAM MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1999 reversing the judgment and decree, dated 3.4.1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chamba in Civil Suit No.73 of 1998/95 decreeing the suit of the appellant for joint possession.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the appellant is that he and respondents are descendents of common ancestor, namely, Saihnu and the pedigree table of the parties is reproduced here -in -below: - Parma }{ Saihnu = Shaido (dead) (defd. No.5) }{ }{ }{ }{ }{ }{ Hakam Din Gulam Mohd. Pyar Din Jana Kashmiroo (plaintiff) (defd. No.1) (defd. No.2) (defd.No.3) (defd. No.4) The further case of the appellant is that Saihnu was owner in possession of the land more specifically detailed in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the ˜suit land). The parties are Sunni Mohammedan and are governed by Shariat law in the matter of inheritance. Saihnu died on 25.11.1984 and his estate has been inherited by his widow, sons and daughters.

(3.) IT is also the case of the appellant that Saihnu was not legally competent to bequeath his property to his some heirs excluding others. The appellant and proforma respondents and widow of Saihnu never gave their consent for the execution of Will qua his entire property in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 and as such, the alleged Will of Saihnu is not binding on the appellant. The respondents No. 1 and 2 got mutation of inheritance of the estate of Saihnu attested behind the back of the appellant. On the death of Saihnu his entire property has been inherited by the appellant, respondents and proforma respondents. Shaido, widow of Saihnu got 1/8th share, proforma respondents being the daughters would get 7/24th share and the remaining 7/12th share is to be inherited by the appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2 being the sons of the deceased owner.