LAWS(HPH)-2001-5-3

PARKASHO DEVI Vs. BASHESHAR SINGH ALIAS SHER SINGH

Decided On May 04, 2001
PARKASHO DEVI Appellant
V/S
BASHESHAR SINGH ALIAS SHER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala dated 30/6/1999. Admitted facts.

(2.) The land, subject matter of dispute, in tikka Kutlahar, Mauza Talara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, was owned and possessed by four brothers, namely, Hari Singh, Punjab Singh, Filo and Chuhru, all sons of Sunder. Thus, each of the brothers had 1/4th share in this land. They had one sister, Chinto Devi, who died in the year 1959 leaving behind her daughters Parkash Devi and Brahmo Devi. Shri Chuhru died in-testate in the year 1972. He was not married and, therefore, issueless. On the death of Chuhru, mutation of his share was attested in favour of surviving brothers, e.g. Hari Singh, Punjab Singh and Filo as also in favour of Parkasho Devi and Brahmo Devi daughters of Chinto Devi . Mutation in respect of 1/4th share was attested in dis-regard to the provisions of Section 12 of the Hindu Succession Act as Chinto Devi had predeceased her brother Chuhru and, therefore, only the surviving three brothers were entitled to inherit the share of Chuhru to the extent of I/3rd each.

(3.) In the year 1991, plaintiffs, successors-in-interest of Hari Singh, Punjab Singh and Filo filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners/ co-sharers in possession of the disputed property and revenue entries to the contrary showing Parkasho Devi and Brahmo Devi daughters of Smt. Chinto to be co-sharers to the extent of 1/4th share of Chuhru, are wrong, illegal merely paper entries, against law, null and void as their mother Chinto Devi had pre-deceased Chuhru and, therefore, they were not entitled to inherit any part of the share of Chuhru in the presence of his brothers. A prayer to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and from getting the same partitioned from the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on the basis of wrong entries, was also made.