KARAM DASS Vs. FATU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgments and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession in respect of the suit land against the defendants, with the allegations that Karmu son of Gianu was owner in possession of the suit land and that he had died intestate on 14.2.1979 and after his death the suit land was inherited by his widow Smt. Dharmi, who died in the year 1981, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her only legal heirs, inasmuch as, they were borne to said Smt. Dharmi from her first husband Ramu. It was alleged that Smt. Dharmi was widowed at the young age in 1949 and thereafter she married Karmu aforesaid on 31.8.1949. Marriage deed Ext. P1 was executed by her while marriage deed Ex. P2 was executed by Karmu in her favour. It was alleged that as per the custom governing the parties, widow remarriage was permissible. It was further alleged that on the death of Karmu the suit land was mutated in favour of Smt. Dharmi on 31.5.1981 but in the appeal filed by defendant No. 3, the Collector had remanded the mutation proceedings to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, who had attested the mutation in favour of the defendant No. 1, to 3, vide order dated 3.9.1988 and the said order is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land, being the sons of Smt. Dharmi.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 by filing the written statement. He denied the relationship of the plaintiffs and Smt. Dharmi with Karmu. It was alleged that in fact Smt. Dharmi was married to Ramu and had given birth to the plaintiffs from the loins of Ramu. It was denied that Smt. Dharmi had married Karmu. The execution of the marriage deeds dated 31.8.1949 by Karmu and Smt. Smt. Dharmi was denied. It was alleged that in fact Karmu was the real brother of defendants No. 1 to 3 and after his death, defendants No. 1 to 3 had inherited the suit land. It was alleged that the mutation, which was earlier sanctioned on 31.5.1981 in favour of Smt. Dharmi had rightly been set aside in appeal and rightly sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 1 to