PARBATU Vs. PANO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under paragraph 32 of the H. P. Courts Order arises out of the decree and judgment dated 10 -10 -1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla Sessions Division, at Bilaspur, whereby the appeal of the appellant -plaintiff was dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 27 -3 -1984 of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, was affirmed. The Sub -Judge 1st Class Ghumarwin, had dismissed the suit of the appellant -plaintiff and denied her the declaration that she is exclusive owner of the land measuring 46 1 Bighas situated in village Kosrian, Pargana Bachhretu, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, as described in the Jamabandi for the year 1959 -60 (hereinafter called the land in dispute) and that the first respondent -defendant Pano Devi does not have any share in it and the revenue entry recording her owner of one -half share is wrong.

(2.) The case set up by the appellant -plaintiff was that her mother, Smt. Karju, who was impleaded as pro -forma defendant in the suit, was owner in possession of the land in dispute. The appellant -plaintiff being her only daughter was residing with her. Sh wanted to bequeath the land in dispute by way of gift to the appellant -plaintiff for which purpose she took the assistance of the second respondent -defendant, Sh. Kishan Singh, who was posted as Patwari in her village at the relevant time The allegations of the appellant -plaintiff were that respondent -defendant Kishan Singh with the connivance of the Petition writer got the gift deed dated 12 -3 -1960 (Ex. DW -4/A) scribed in favour of the appellant -plaintiff and his wife, respondent defendent Pano Devi, in equal share and got it executed from Smt. Karju by playing fraud and mis -representation upon her. The Gift -deed was also got registered from the Sub -Registrar on 19 -3 -1960 and the mutation (Ex. P -Q) in respect thereof was entered in the revenue record on 24 -2 1961 despite objections raised by Smt. Karju. She had also filtd an appeal against the order of mutation but failed Thereafter, the appellant -plaintiff filed civil suit on 13 -11 -1964.

(3.) The respondents -defendants resisted the suit and denied that the gift deed, Ex. DW -4/A, was got executed from the donor, Smt. Karju, by exercising fraud and mis -representation. According to them, she had gifted the land in dispute in equal shares in favour of the appellant -plaintiff and respondent -defendant No.1 of her own sweet will. They also took a number of preliminary objections, inter alia, that the appellant -plaintiffs has no locus standi to file the suit and also that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation.