PRABHU RAM Vs. NARDOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed by the defendant/appellant against the impugned rendition of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant/appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., whereby the latter Court rendered a decree for declaration qua the plaintif being owner of 1/3 share with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character or user of the suit land. The defendant/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan. His standing aggrieved, he has therefrom preferred the instant appeal before this Court for seeking from this Court an order reversing the findings recorded therein.

(2.) The subject matter of the dispute is land comprised in Khewat\Khatauni Nos. 14/11/27 measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas and khewat/khatauni No. 15/12/28 measuring 37 bighas 11 biswas situate in village Sehlar, Pargana Dharampur, Pahar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The case of the plaintif is that Sh. Santu was father of the defendants. He was also father of Puran, husband of the plaintif. Sh. Puran died during the life time of Santu and left behind plaintif as his wife. The plaintif remained in the house of the defendants and Santu used to cultivate the land in suit. Santu died and mutation No. 94 was sanctioned on 24.2.1996 in favour of the defendants to the exclusion of the plaintif. The plaintif is the successor of Santu being widow of predeceased son and is entitled to succeed along with defendants to the estate of Santu to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land in suit. So, the plaintif filed the suit for declaration that she was joint owner and joint possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintif from joint occupation of the land in suit. The plaintif in alternative prayed for grant of maintenance at the rate of 1000/- per month under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

(3.) Defendant No.1 contested the suit and averred that the deceased Santu had 7bighas 8biswas co-parcenary interest in the Joint Hindu Ancestral and Coparcenary Property. The plaintif was not widow of Puran and was not owner in possession of the land in suit to the extent of 1/3 rd share.