GODAWARI Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against the dismissal of her suit for injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering in her right to receive the share of offerings of Vaishno Devi.

(2.) THE facts leading to this litigation lie in a narrow compass. One Jasodha died having him surviving his widow Mst. Kasto and a brother Shiv Saran defendant (now deceased). Mst. Kasto succeeded as heir to his estate and a mutation was attested in her favour on 5th Sawan 198S (Bikratni), Mst. Kasto died much after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and is survived by the appellant -plaintiff who succeeded to her estate. Neither her right to succeed nor that of her mother, as such, was questioned by the deceased -respondent at any stage. However, when the plaintiff tried to assert her right to a share in the offerings of Vaishno Devi, in 1963, the deceased -defendant is alleged to have challenged her right to do so. Aggrieved, by this invasion of her right, the plaintiff sought to enforce it by way of an injunction on the plea that she and Shiv Saran defendant were separately entitled to 22 old paisa (4 N. paisa) share each in the chartal of Vaishno Devi and their turn to collect it comes once in three years. She asserted that Jasodha, and thereafter his widow, Mst. Kasto, continued to enjoy this share in the offerings during their life time and after the death of Mst. Kasto, it was collected by Onkar Singh her adopted son. Onkar Singh having died and the plaintiff being the sole survivor to Mst. Kasto, alone was entitled to receive the same. That in Baisakh 2020, when the turn of the parties came, the defendant interfered with - her right to collect the same.

(3.) THE defendant resisted the suit on the following grounds: (1) That the defendant is exclusively entitled to the 8 no share in the offerings of Vaishno Devi and that the plaintiff is neither a share holder with him nor has any, right to receive any share in the offerings. (2) That after the death of Jasodha, he alone had been in receipt of the entire share of 8 paisa. (3) That since Mst. Kasto never enjoyed her share in the offerings, the question of Onkar Singh, who was not even a legally adopted son, collecting the share could not have arisen. (4) That there are only four castes entitled to receive the offerings of Shri Vaishno Devi and the plaintiff, a daughter, having been married out of those, is precluded to claim a share in the offerings : On 4 -10 -63 the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Jasodha and in that capacity is entitled to collect the offerings ? O.P.P. (2) Whether after the death of Jasodha Mst. Kasto, mother of the plaintiff, collected the offerings, on her death her adopted son Onkar Singh, and after his death the plaintiff collected the share ? O.P.P. (3) Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable ? O.P.Defs. (4) Whether Dharmarth is a necessary party ? O.P.Dsfs. (5) Whether section 92 CPC is applicable to the suit, if so, what is its effect ? O.P.Defs. (6) Relief ? The suit was decreed in the first instance on 19 -4 -1968 but on appeal the decree was set aside by the District Judge, Udhampur en 28 -6 -1963, who remanded the case for fresh trial. After the order of remand, the trial court allowed the parties to lead fresh evidence and ultimately dismissed the suit on 27 -5 -1970 an appeal whereof also met the same fate and hence (he second appeal, whereof the main challenge of the appellant is that the courts below have made Wrong assumptions of law and drawn erroneous conclusions on the admitted facts.