DAULAT RAM Vs. LACHHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common judgment it is proposed to dispose both the above noted appeals as they have arisen out of a common judgment passed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Smt. Lachhmi Devi respondent -plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant -defendant from interfering with her possession himself or through his helpers, relatives, friends and members of his family in any manner in land comprised in Khasra Nos. 73, 106 and 138 measuring 4 -6 Bighas situate in Chak Barsanu, Pargana Matyanj, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, and for payment of Rs. 3,000 as damages on account o f wrongful cutting of three Tunni trees and 14 numbers Bamboos from her land. This suit was contested and resisted by the appellant -defendant and according to him the plaintiff was widow of Hiru his father and not Durga, it was further averred that the revenue entries showing her to be the widow of Durga are wrong and case of the defendant further was that the plaintiff his father Hiru were living together as husband wife for the last 40 years and plaintiff gave birth to two daughters, besides this his own mother Smt. Biharu gave birth to two sons and three daughters. When Sh. Hiru died about 8 years back he was survived by two widows, namely, Biharu and Lachhmi and three daughters and two sons from Biharu. It was admitted that Durga was one of the brother of the father of appellant who died near about 40 years ago and none was left behind him, his in -heritence should have gone to Hiru and Shivia and his land is in exclusive possession of the appellant. According to appellant there was joint Hindu Family of which his father was the Karta and since Durga had no wife and children, therefore, his estate devolved upon his brothers, however, taking undue advantage from the wrong entries, plaintiff started claiming herself to be the widow of Durga, her right, title and interest, if any, stood extinguished because of her marriage with Hiru.

(4.) In the aforesaid background, the parties went to trial on the following Issues in both the cases which were to the following effect : In Suit No. 38/l/198S: