BACHNI Vs. KALAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Smt. Bachni plaintiff -appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.1993 passed by Addl. District Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh, vide which the appeal filed by defendant No1 Smt Kalawati was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1991 passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in its entirety.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Smt Bachni plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, with the allegations that one Chuhra Ram was co -owner in joint possession to the extent of 3/4 share in the suit land and that said Chuhra Ram died intestate on 16.7.1980 leaving behind he plaintiff as the only legal heir, being the wife of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that the plaintiff was married to Chuhra Ram deceased and lived with him in his house as his legally wedded wife. It was alleged that later on due to some differences and stained relations between them, the plaintiff had been living at her -parental village for few years before the death of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that no child was born out of the said wedlock between the plaintiff and Chuhra Ram deceased and as such there was no other legal heir to succeed and inherit the estate left by Chuhra deceased, except the plaintiff being the wife of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that during his life time Chuhra Ram deceased had not married any other woman and even otherwise he could not have married any other woman during the subsistence of marriage between the plaintiff and Chuhra Ram deceased since there was no divorce between the plaintiff and Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that in case Chuhra Ram deceased was having illicit relations with any other woman during his life time. She could not have got the status of a legally wedded wife and any child born out of such illicit relations could not be termed as the legitimate child of Chuhra Ram deceased was would not be entitled to inherit the property left by Chuhra Ram deceased and would not be entitled to inherit the property left by Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 Smt. Kalawati was not the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased, as mentioned in the revenue record and was not entitled to succeed to the estate left by Chuhra Ram deceased as such mutation No.22 sanctioned in her favour by the Assistant Collector, vide order dated 21.9.1980, ignoring the plaintiff, was illegal and void and in operative against the rights of the plaintiff qua the suit land. It was alleged that the said mutation was got sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 in collusion with the revenue staff, even though it was known to every body that the plaintiff was legally wedded life of the Chuhra Ram deceased and was alive and was entitled to succeed to the property left by Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that the present revenue entries in favour of defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati were illegal and were liable to be ignored and similarly the sale of portion of the land, out of the share of Chuhra Ram deceased by defendant No.1 Kalawati in favour of proforma defendants, was also illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff had come to know about mutation No.22 and the wrong revenue entries in favour of defendant No. 1 only in September, 1986 and it was only then the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit. It was accordingly prayed that the plaintiff be declared co -owner in joint possession by way of succession and inheritance of the 3/4th share in the total land as left by Chuhra Ram deceased, being the legally wedded life of Chuhra Ram deceased and mutation No.22 in respect of the said land sanctioned on 21.9.1980 in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared illegal and void and the sale of part of the suit land by defendant No.1 in favour of proforma defendants be also declared illegal and void and by way of consequential relief the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the joint possession over the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati by filing the written statement, taking up various preliminary objections, including the plea that the plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit land nor had any concern with the same. It was alleged that infact the suit land was previously owned by Chuhra Ram, deceased, father of the answering defendant and on his death the same had rightly devolved upon the answering defendant, since Chuhra Ram deceased had no other heir except the answering defendant. It was denied that the plaintiff was ever married to Chuhra Ram deceased. On the other hand, it was pleaded that in fact the plaintiff was married to one Bogal and that Roop Ram, Ram Sarup, Phoola Ram (sons) and Smt. Krishna (daughter) were born to the plaintiff from the loins of said Bogal. It was alleged that the plaintiff had succeeded to the estate of said Bogal after his death in the year 1969, It was further alleged that Chuhra Ram deceased was married to Smt. Biro, mother of the answering defendant and the answering defendant was born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that infact the plaintiff had no concern whatsoever with Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that the suit was barred by limitation. On merits, it was reiterated that the plaintiff had nothing to do with Chuhra Ram deceased and it was denied that the plaintiff was the wife of Chuhra Ram deceased On the other hand, it was pleaded that Smt. Biro, mother of the answering defendant, was married to Chuhra Ram deceased and the answering defendant being the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased was the sole surviving heir of Chuhra Ram deceased and had rightly succeeded to the state of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that in fact the plaintiff was the widow of Bogal and had been living with him as his wife and three sons and a daughter were born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that the marriage of Chuhra Ram deceased had taken place with Smt. Biro, mother of the answering defendant and that said Smt. Biro had died within few days of the birth of the answering defendant and that the answering defendant was the sole legal heir of Chuhra Ram deceased, whereas the plaintiff had no concern with Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that infact the plaintiff was the sister of Smt. Biro (mother of defendant No. 1) and she had evil eyes upon the estate of Chuhra Ram deceased and she concocted a false story regarding her marriage with Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that the plaintiff had filed the present suit in order to grab the property left by Chuha Ram deceased. Other allegations contained in the plaint were also controverted and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.