DARSHAN RAM Vs. GAJJAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 31.3.1994 in Civil Appeal No. 133 of 1988 and Cross Objection No. 121 of 1989, passed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby appeal as well as cross objections have been allowed and judgment and decree in case No. 122 of 1985, dated 30.6.1988 has been modified in terms of the appellate decree.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Darshan Ram, appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), filed a suit against Gajjan, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1) and respondents No. 2 to 6, his nephews, (hereinafter referred to as defendants No. 2 to 6). This was a suit for declaration to the effect that gift deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 6 of his total land measuring 36 kanal 9 marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1980/81 vide Ex. D -3 and mutation as a consequence of it vide mutation No. 133 being without legal necessity does not effect on his reversionary rights to -succeed to the estate of the said defendant No. 1, his father, after his death; with a prayer to set aside both. (It may be observed here that as per gift deed Ex. D -3, the gifted land is 7/8 out of the total area and this fact is also reflected in remarks column of Ex. P -l jamabandi attached with the plaint).

(3.) According to the plaintiff, besides him, he has two more brothers. Being son of defendant No. 1, he is within three degrees and thus can maintain the suit. Plaintiff and defendants are Rajputs who are governed by agricultural custom of Kangra District in the matter relating to alienation of property. Thus, defendant No. 1 had no right to have alienated the property by means of above said gift deed. He further pleaded that gifted property is inherited by his father from his fore -fathers, thus is ancestral in character. According to him gift is void abinitio and has been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of his grand -sons, defendants No. 2 to 6 in connivance with their parents with a view to debar the plaintiff of his legitimate share. Besides this, there was no legal necessity for defendant No. l to execute the same as the plaintiff was maintaining the said defendant. Since the defendants refused to concede the claim of the plaintiff to get the gift deed as well as mutation in question set aside, hence this suit.