DHANPAT KANWAR Vs. SHANTI TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal representatives of Late, Dhanpat Kanwar, plaintiff/petitioner, aggrieved of the order dt. 26/5/2014, made by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, confirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer vide order dt. 15/10/2014 and order dt. 31/5/2017, made by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, declining the appeal; have approached this Court praying for the following relief (s):

(2.) Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner (Dhanpat Kanwar), instituted a suit for possession before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, pleading that her father late Shri Buddh Singh Mahajan died around year 1950. He was survived by his widow late Sirah Kanwar, minor son Nand Kumar Singh and by her (Late Dhanpat Kanwar). It is pleaded case of the petitioner- plaintiff that late Buddh Singh Mahajan owned Jagir land and after resumption of Jagir, he was declared Khatedar of land measuring about 70 bighas and 18 biswas covered under Kliasra No. 578, 584, 585 and 586. Sirah Kanwar w/o late Buddh Singh Mahajan died on 5/1/1992. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, she being daughter, is entitled to her share in Buddh Singh's property. For the revenue officers, by mistake, recorded the entire land of late Shri Buddh Singh Mahajan in the name of Nand Kumar Singh (Son) whereas name of Sirah Kanwar w/o of late Shri Buddh Singh Mahajan was not recorded in the revenue records. Under the circumstances aforesaid, the plaintiff-petitioner was deprived of her rightful share in the property. Further, Nand Kumar Singh, entered into unregistered agreement for sale dt. 27/7/1960 of 25 bighas and 10 biswas of the land involved herein, in favour of one Lalu Teli and his son Lala Teli for a consideration of Rs.363.00 (Rupees Three Hundred Sixty Three). The possession of land is now with legal representatives of Lala Teli while in the revenue records it is in Khatedari of son of Lalu Teli, however, both of them have expired. Another piece of land measuring 45 bighas of land out of Buddh Singh Mahajan's. estate was sold to one Narayan son of Kalu Teli for a sale consideration of Rs.637.00 (Rupees six hundred thirty seven) by an unregistered agreement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajat Ranjan, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, vehemently argued that the revenue suit was instituted in the year 2003. It is also not disputed that in the year 1950, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'), had no application. However, plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to the subject land involved herein under THE HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHTS TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937 (for short, 'the Act of 1937'), which contemplates that when a Hindu dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, shall, subject to the provisions of sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act of 1937, will be entitled in respect of property in respect of which her husband dies intestate to the same share as a son. Hence, late Sirah Kanwar was entitled to equal share in the subject land involved herein as the son (Nand Kumar Singh). Therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner, sister of Nand Kumar Singh; is also entitled to share in the property. Learned counsel further stated that though such a plea, on the basis of Sec. 3 -of the Act of 1937, was not raised before the authorities below; however, the plea being pure legal question of law can be raised at any stage.