SUNITA DEVI Vs. SANGITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala dated 20-1-2001. It appears plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that plaintiff is the sole owner in possession of the properties detailed in the heading (A) of the plaint with a consequent relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties. In alternative, plaintff prayed for a decree of possssion of the properties in question.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that her father Mast Ram was the owner of the properties. The father of the plaintiff expired on 25-1-1983. Her mother Ram Piari pre-deceased her father and the plaintiff being the only daughter was entitled to succeed to the properties of her father which are situate in village Ghartholi, Mauza and Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and also in the town of Baijnath. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 Sunita Devi was not legally wedded wife of her father and, therefore, had no right to inherit or succeed to the properties of her father and even if such marriage took place, then such marriage was illegal, null and void as the marriage was solemnised during the life- time of Ram Pirari. It was further case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 being a clever woman and taking undue advantage of the minority of the plaintiff has misrepresented facts to the Revenue Officer and got the inheritance of Mast Ram sanctioned in her favour to the extent of half share claiming herself to be widow of deceased Mast Ram.

(3.) Defendants resisted the suit. Allegations were controverted. The case of the defendant Sunita Devi was that she was legally wedded wife of deceased Mast Ram and therefore, inherited the properties of the plaintiff to the extent of half share. It was denied that plaintiff was the sole legal heir of Mast Ram and entitled to succeed to entire properties to the exclusion of defendant No. 1. It was also pleaded that Mast Ram divorced the mother of the plaintiff during his lifetime and she was getting maintenance allowance of Rs. 100.00 per month and that it is only after divorce that Mast Ram married Sunita Devi Subsequently written statement was amended and a plea was raised that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction.