TRILOKU Vs. WAZIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this civil 1st appeal are as follows: -

(2.) TRILOKU and others are connected with one Rasila, through a common ancestor Jasso. Rasila had left a widow Mst. Chiri who died in 1961. Defendant No. 1 Wazir Chand is the son of Mst. Chiri from her previous husband Puchu. Wazir Chand sold 3 kanals and 17 marlas of land by means of a sale deed dated April 1, 1969 to defendant No. 2 Mohinder Nath for a consideration of Rs. 7.000/ -. This land was inherited by Chiri from her husband Rasila. The plaintiffs averred that they were entitled to this land and Wazir Chand had no right to tranfer the same to Mohinder Nath. The plaint is very badly drafted but the facts can be gleaned from the pleadings and the judgment of the learned District Judge as narrated by him in his judgment under appeal. The proved facts in this case are that Wazir Chand is the son of Mst. Chiri, widow of Rasila from her previous husband Puchu. Mst. Chiri married Rasila. Rasila died during the life time of Mst. Chiri who inherited the land in dispute from him and Mst. Chiri also died in 1961 without leaving any issue from Rasila. According to the plaintiffs appellants, they as reversioners of Rasila, are entitled to the property which originally belonged to Rasila, subsequently inherited by the widow, Mst. Chiri, there being no issue from Mst. Chiri and Rasila against Wazir Chand who is her son by her previous husband Puchu. The learned District Judge has, after discussing section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which is section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, No. 38 of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and relying upon an authority reported as AIR 1969 Bombay 205 held that Wazir Chand being the son of Mst. Chiri from her previous husband, would inherit the property which had been inherited by Mst. Chiri from her husband Rasila but the agnates or reversioners of Rasila could not inherit the property ; hence he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs -appellants by his -judgment dated November 7, 1969. Against this judgment and decree the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE only authority that has been brought to our notice on the point is of the Bombay High Court reported as AIR 1969 Bombay 205 as already mentioned.