KRISHAN LAL Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment, decree dated 5.4.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.30 of 1990, affirming judgment, decree dated 17.1.1990 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, camp at Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No.15/1 of 1988/85.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Garja predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 7 and respondents No.8 and 9 had filed suit against Chaudhary predecessor-in-interest of appellants. In the suit respondents No.10,11 were impleaded as proforma defendants . THE suit is for permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession. THE further pleaded case is that Ramku mother of respondent No.10 inherited her husband's estate including the suit land described in the plaint. Ramku had sold her share including the suit land to Chaudhary by a registered sale deed dated 2.3.1955 Ex.DA. THE respondents No.1 to 9 pleaded that they had been coming in possession as tenants under Ramku and they have become owners of the suit land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 under Chaudhary or in the alternative against respondent No.10 after the death of Ramku on 8.7.1985. THEy alleged that Collector had wrongly cancelled the mutation of ownership; hence the suit was filed for declaration and injunction restraining Chaudhary for interfering in any manner over the suit land.

(3.) IN Chaudhary vs. Ajudhia 2001 (2) SLC 147 implication of Section 14 of the Succession Act, 1956 regarding the land in question held by Ramku was considered. Chaudhary was also party in that litigation. The substantial question of law No.1 in the present appeal was also involved in that appeal and it was held that though the widow Ramku alienated the share of her husband in the joint property to Chaudhary, brother of her husband, but at the same time, Chaudhary had reconveyed some of the property, including the suit land, to Ramku under an agreement recognizing her maintenance right on the estate of her husband. It was held that at the time of coming into force of the Act, Ramku was in possession of the suit property in recognition of her pre-existing rights. IN these circumstances, sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Act would come into play blossming the limited rights of Ramku into full ownership rights over the disputed land. IN view Chaudhary vs. Ajudhia 2001 (2) SLC 147, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellants.