ROSHAN LAL Vs. DALIPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the respondent for actual possession of a specified extent of land situate in Tikka Chamlehar, Mauza Thehar, Tehsil Kangra, District Kangra. The suit has been decreed concurrently by awarding symbolic joint possession. Hence the present second appeal.

(2.) The case of the respondent was that he was the son of one Pari, widow of Punnu, who died intestate in Jan. 1959, leaving him behind as her sole heir. According to the respondent, she had 1/36th share in four different holdings described in the plaint and the relief as to possession was based on his right to succeed to the land falling to her share in those different holdings. The suit was resisted by the appellants, who are the collaterals of Punnu, on the ground that the respondent was not the son of Pari, that he was the son of one Khitu and that, as such, he could not claim to succeed to the estate, if any, of Pari. Besides, according to the appellants, Pari had limited interest in the suit land which was in lieu of maintenance and as such also the respondent could not claim title thereto by succession. The plea of estoppel was also set up on the basis that a mutation in respect of the suit land was effected as far back as 1959 in favour of the appellants but no objection was taken thereto by the respondent till the institution of the suit.

(3.) The trial Court held that : (1) the respondent was the son of Pari, who was the widow of Punnu, (2) it was not established that the interest of Pari in the suit land was a limited interest in lieu of maintenance, (3) in any case, the interest of Pari had matured into full ownership before she died in view of the provisions of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (4) the respondent was entitled to succeed to her estate in view of the provisions of S.15(1)(a) of the said Act and (5) the plea of estoppel was without substance. The trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit. While passing the decree, however, the trial Court only awarded symbolic possession as a joint owner to the respondent in the suit land in view of the fact that Pari had only a share in the estate which was not separated by metes and bounds. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.