DEVI SINGH Vs. MEGH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs -appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed on August 10, 1979, by the Additional District Judge, Mandi allowing the appeal of defendants -respondents and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed on June 26, 1972 by the Senior Sub -Judge, Mandi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs -appellants.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit for grant of decree for possession*of the suit land on the allegations that the land was originally owned by Paddu. On his death, the estate was enjoyed by his widow Smt. Achri as a limited owner, who, on December 7, 1950, by executing a deed of sale sold the suit land in favour of Keshav and Titia defendants. The sale was challenged by the plaintiffs as reversioners of Paddu by instituting a suit claiming a decree for declaration that the sale was invalid for want of legal necessity and consideration The suit was dismissed but the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, on November 25, 1958 granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring the sole to be null and void on their rights.

(3.) Smt. Achri died in the year 1969 and on May 4, 1970, suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs, out of which the present appeal has arisen. 4 The suit was contested by the defendants in which Keshav defendant No. 1 took up a plea that he was a tenant on the suit land at the time when it was sold to him and Titia and as such plaintiffs were not entitled to the actual delivery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court repelling the contention of the defendants. An appeal was preferred by defendants before the lower appellate Court. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside holding the defendant -Keshav to be a tenant at the time of sale of the property by Smt. Achri in favour of defendants. It also came to the conclusion that Keshav was a tenant in possession of the suit land in the year 1948 -49 and he never relinquished possession and continued to hold the property as a tenant till the date of sale, where after he occupied the property as one of the owners alongwith Titia. The lower appellate Court also concluded that on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) Smt Achri became full and absolute owner and Keshav stepped into her rights and as such the decree which had obtained by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration ceased to be inoperative.