RAM ASRA Vs. CHINTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT:- The dispute between the parties relates to a small area of land, measuring 4 marlas. The appellants (hereinafter to be referred to as the ('Plaintiffs') instituted a suit in the Court of Sub Judge at Una for possession of the land in dispute. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the'defendants'), preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, who allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have challenged the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge and have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Necessary facts for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated. One Tulsi was the occupancy tenant of the land in dispute. He died issueless on March 25, 1953 and was survived by his widow, Smt. Hazari. Soon after the death of Tulsi the Act known as' The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was passed and, after the assent of the President was received on 14th April, 1953, it was published in the Punjab Gazette Extraordinary, dt. 15th April, 1953. The Act was, however, given retrospective effect from 15th June, 1952 and it was provided that all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any) recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the shares in the Shamilat with respect to the land concerned) of the landlord, in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant, shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall be deemed to have vested in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord with effect from the aforesaid date. As such, Tulsi is deemed to have acquired all the rights in the land in dispute by operation of law with effect from 15th June, 1952 though he died in Mar. 1953. As such, Smt. Hazari inherited the property of her husband as a widow on the death of her husband which took place on 25th March, 1953. After Smt. Hazari inherited the estate, she sold the property in dispute to the plaintiff by executing a registered sale-deed on 31st Aug. 1962.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, the defendants illegally trespassed into the land in dispute and put up a'Chapper' (hatches) on a portion of the said area. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the possession of the disputed area. The defendants put up a plea that since Smt. Hazari had remarried and had also given birth to four/five children, she had lost her right in the property in dispute due to her remarriage and unchastity, according to the prevalent custom. It may be pointed out that the trial court repelled the plea of the defendants that Smt. Hazari had either remarried or had become unchaste after the death of her husband. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the findings of the trial court and held that re-marriage and unchastity of Smt. Hazari had been established. The learned District Judge consequently held that Smt. Hazari had lost all her rights in the property. As a result of the above conclusion, it was held that the sale made by her in favour of the plaintiffs was ineffective and did not confer any rights on them under the sale.