HARI CHAND Vs. KUMARI ANITA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant and aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below, has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the defendants that defendants No. 1 and 2 are not born from the wedlock of the plaintiff and they are not entitled to succeed to the property of the plaintiff. It is averred that he is co-owner in joint possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.4/4 plots 19 measuring 55-0 Bighas to the extent of 1/5th share, Khata Khatauni No.5/5 to 8, plots 4 measuring 15-13 bighas to the extent of 1/20th share, Khata Khatauni No. 22/29 to 30 plots 4 measuring 43-13 bighas to the extent of 10/285 share total measuring 13-7 Bighas situated in Village Jamlog and Khata Khatauni No. 7/14 plots 3 measuring 3-15 bighas to the extent of 16/672 share, Khata Khatauni No. 8/15 to 16 plots 22 measuring 219-19 bighas to the extent of 1/28 share, Khata Khatauni No. 9/17 to 22 plots 15 to the extent of 1/28 share and Khata Khatauni No. 17/54 to 56 plots 28 measuring 261-1 Bighas to the extent of 1/112 share, total measuring 3-15 bighas situated in Village Bando Bharan, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. It is further averred that the plaintiff was married to defendant No.3 in the year 1994, who was already married to Mohan Lal of Village Zajar; Balkoo of Village Deedag and Keshwa Nand of Village Kolath. At the time of marriage with plaintiff, she was having a female child Nikki alias Anita, defendant No.1, who was one year old. The defendant No.1 is recorded in the family of Shri Kanshi Ram, father of defendant No.3 in the Pariwar register. At the time of marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No.3, she was already pregnant and she delivered female child, namely, Ranjana, defendant No.2 two months after the marriage. Thus, defendants No. 1 and 2 are not children of defendant No.3 from the loins of the plaintiff. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh in criminal case No. 41/4 of 1999 on 3.1.2000 awarded maintenance to defendants No. 1 to 3 and Rakesh. Defendant No.3 at that had admitted that Kumari Ranjana was born 3-4 months after the marriage with the plaintiff. Therefore, defendants No. 1 and 2 are not the children of the plaintiff, thus, they are not entitled to maintenance etc. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability and estoppel were taken. On merits, they averred that defendant No.3 is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and all children of defendant No.3 are from the plaintiff. Defendant No.3 denied that she was married to Mohan Lal, Keshwa Nand and Bhalkoo.