LACHHMI Vs. BALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been directed by the Defendant Smt. Lachhmi, against the judgment and decree dated 29-3-1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1986 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Arki.

(2.) The admitted pedigree table of the parties is as under: <TAB> Pritam | ________________________________________________ | | | Puria Ram Dass Tikhu | | | | Lekh Ram _____________________ | | | | Durga Sukh Ram Giaru (Plaintiff Smt. Lachhmi(Widow) | (Defendant No. 2) No.1) Defendant No. 1 | Succeeded by Plaintiffs No. 2 to 13 </TAB>

(3.) The suit was resisted by the two Defendants. They denied that Smt. Lachhmi, Defendant No. 1, after the death of her husband Lekh Ram, had remarried Defendant No. 2 Giaru. It was averred that Smt. Lachhmi had succeeded to the estate of her husband in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Women Rights to Properties Act, 1935, as a widow and on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has become the full and absolute owner thereof. Though the factun of Smt. Lachhmi having given birth to four children after the death of her husband was admitted, it was pleaded that such children were born to her as a result of her sexual relations with Plaintiff Durga and Sukh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 13. Objections as to estoppel, limitation, jurisdiction of civil courts, absence of cause of action, valuation and the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties were also raised.