SEELO Vs. NANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant, who has remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below has come up in second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following question of law:

(2.) The facts, as admitted and as have been found by the Courts below are that Sunka son of Shri Kirpa owned and possessed agricultural land. A gift was made by him of the entire property in favour of the plaintiff appellant for which mutation No. 606 was attested in the revenue records on 16th Jan., 1950. A Civil Suit came to be filed by Sunka against the plaintiff, being Civil Suit No. 516 of 1950, in the Court of Sub-Judge, Kangra, wherein a decree was prayed by Sunka for declaration that he continued to be owner in possession of the suit property and attestation of mutation of gift in favour of Seelo, plaintiff was ineffective and inoperative against his rights and by way of consequential relief, a decree for injunction was prayed. In the alternative, a decree for possession was also claimed. It is not in dispute that the suit came to be filed on the allegations that gift had been procured by Seelo on the understanding that he would render services to Sunka and his wife Laxmi and would maintain them during their life time. Accepting the word of Seelo, mutation of gift was got entered and attested, but it was found that Seelo had no intention to either serve Sunka and his wife or to maintain them during their life time. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the said Civil Suit No. 516/50 decided on a compromise having been arrived at amongst the parties and on the basis of which a compromise decree was passed on 5th April, 1951. As per terms of the decree, suit of Sunka with respect to 1/2 share in the property, for possession was decreed and with respect to remaining 1/2 share, it was dismissed subject to a condition. The condition being That on this 1/2 share for which suit had been dismissed, Sunka would continue to remain in occupation during his life time and after his death, his widow would remain in occupation till her life time in the capacity as tenant in lieu of maintenance and no rent was to be paid. It is also not in dispute that effect was given to the decree factually as also in the revenue records. Sunka remained in occupation of the property till his death, which took place on 22nd Dec., 1954. Both Sunka and Seelo were shown to be the owners to the extent of 1/2 share. The entire property was shown to be in occupation of Sunka, namely, 1/2 share as owner and the remaining 1/2 share as tenant under Seelo in lieu of maintenance and after death of Sunka, it was Laxmi, his widow, who was shown to be in occupation of the property with respect to 1/2 share as tenant under Seelo in lieu of maintenance.

(3.) Smt. Laxmi admittedly died in the year 1981. On 2nd Aug., 1963, she made a gift of the entire property, namely, 1/2 share, which she got by way of inheritance from Sunka and also with respect to remaining 1/2 share, which was shown in the revenue records to be owned by Seelo in favour of Nanak, her pichalag son, who is the respondent in the instant case.