RAM LAL Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the appellant -plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree dated May 29,2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2000 passed by the learned sub Judge, Rajgarh, has been set aside qua the respondents - defendants 1 and 2, though has been maintained insofar as the judgment and decree are against respondent - defendant No.3.

(2.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants for declaration J and injunction against the respondents - defendants (hereafter referred to as the j defendants). Since defendants Sher Singh and Balwant Singh are minors, therefore, they were sued through defendant Hari Kaur, their mother and natural guardian. Plaintiffs case, as made out in the plaint, is that one Dila Ram was the owner in possession of land comprising khata/khatauni No.100/121, khasra No.828/541, measuring 5 bighas, situate in village Matyana, Teh. Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) He also owned Maruti Van bearing No. HPN01261 and Mohindra Commander, bearing No. HP -10 -0801. One Satya Devi was the wife of said Dila Ram and the plaintiffs were born out of the wedlock. Said Satya Devi died in the year 1996 and no other marriage was solemnised by Dila Ram. Said Dila Ram died in an accident on 28.6.1999, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, being his son and daughter and, therefore, they inherited his property and were also entitled to get bank, postal and GPF deposits of the deceased and are also entitled to other service benefits. However, on 20.10.1999, plaintiffs came to know that the mutation of the suit land has been attested in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants jointly, whereas, defendants have no right, title or concern with the estate of the said deceased. It is also claimed that the mutation has been got attested by the defendants in collusion with the revenue staff and the plaintiffs were not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Defendants also threatened to transfer the aforesaid vehicles and to get the service benefits of the deceased.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, they took the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs, improper valuation of the suit, non joinder of necessary parties and want of jurisdiction. On merits, the defendants claimed that said Satya Devi was the first wife of Dila Ram and died in the year 1983. Defendant Hari Kaur was also legally wedded wife of Dila Ram and defendants Sher Singh and Balwant Singh were born out of the marriage between defendant Hari Kaur and deceased Dila Ram. It has, therefore, been denied that plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased. It has also been claimed that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property which is in fact in possession of the defendants. It is further claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the bank and post office deposits, GPF etc. in the name of the deceased, as the deceased had nominated defendant Hari Kaur to get such deposits etc. She has also been given service by the University where Dila Ram was employed before his death. Thus, defendants have claimed to be the lawful heirs of the deceased and have denied the claim of the plaintiffs.