PRAKASH Vs. SHAHNI (MST )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal came before us on 19th April 1963. There was a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent, Mst Shahni, was the real owner of the property in dispute and she had purchased it in the name of Bindu Ram defendant 2 with whom she lived as his mistress on the date of the purchase. This concurrent finding of fact could not be disturbed in second appeal. Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant, however, raised a new point that notwithstanding the fact that the property in dispute had been purchased Senami in the name of Bindu Ram for the plaintiff, Shahni could not get the declaration sought for with respect to this property because she was not a permanent resident of the State and as such could not acquire any immovable property in the State. We, therefore, remitted an issue to the trial court to following effect: -

(2.) WE further directed the trial court to permit the parties to lead such evidence as they chose about this issue and then give its finding. The trial court had to submit its finding through the District Judge Jammu.

(3.) THE trial court, after the case went back to it allowed parties opportunity to lead evidence. The defendant on whom the burden of proof lay produced two witnesses Desraj and Kanshi Ram and himself went into the witness box. The plaintiff produced Dheru, Amru, Gauri, Kirpa, Amar Nath Kithu Ram and Sain Das witnesses and herself went into the witness box. The finding of the courts below is unanimous on the point that Mst. Shahni respondent is not a permanent resident of the State. This finding was accepted as correct by the appellant, but the respondent Mst. Shahni put in her objections with regard to this finding before us.