SURAT SINGH Vs. MTLACHHMAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by the collaterals of Deva Singh; deceased, for a declaration to the effect that an alienation by way of gift effected by Deva Singh's widowed grand daughter-in-law is not binding upon them. The gift was made in favour of Deva Singh's grandson's daughter. Deva Singh left a widow Mt. Nand Kaur upon whom his property devolved. Deva Singh had a son Budha Singh who predeceased him. Budha SingVsson Wusawa Singh also predeceased him. Wasawa Singh left a widow Mt. Lachhman Kaur and a daughter Mt. Kartar Kaur. After Mt. Nand Kaur, Wasawa Singh's widow Mt. Lachhman Kaur succeeded to the property and she made a gift of it to her daughter Mt. Kartar Kaur. It is this gift which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the present litigation.

(2.) The property in dispute is situated in two villages, namely Eakh Devi Das Pura and Chhapa in the District of Amritsar. The defence of Mt. Kartar Kaur was that the plaintiffs were not the collaterals of Deva Singh, that the property in dispute was not ancestral qua them and that, therefore, Mt. Lachhman Kaur defendant 1, the donor, had acquired full rights of ownership in the property. She was, therefore, competent to gift it to her daughter Mt. Kartar Kaur. It was further pleaded that the gift amounted, to acceleration of succession and the plaintiffs were, therefore, not competent to challenge it. I may emphasise at this stage that the only ground on which the plaintiffs came to Court was that the land in dispute was ancestral qua them and that the gift could not affect their reversionary rights. There was no alternative plea that the suit was competent even if the land was found to be non-ancestral. The trial -Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the collaterals of Deva Singh deceased? (2) Whether defendant 1 got the property in dispute as full owner? (3) If issue 2 is decided against the defendant, is the land in dispute ancestral qua the plaintiffs? (4) Whether the gifts in favour of defendant 2 are valid against the plaintiffs? (5) Do the gifts in dispute tantamount to acceleration of succession? 6. It issue Nos. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the defendants, can the plaintiffs challenge the alienations? 7. Belief.

(3.) The learned trial Judge found issues Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in the affirmative, that is the plaintiffs were held to be collaterals of Deva Singh and the gifts effected by Mt. Lachhman Kaur in respect of the property left by Deva Singh in the two villages were upheld as valid and as amounting to acceleration of succession, Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 6 were answered in the negative. It was held that defendant 1, Mt. Lachhman Kaur, was not the full owner of the property, that the land was not ancestral qua the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge the alienations. In appeal only two points were urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shamair Chand. He argued in the first place that the property of village Chhapa was ancestral qua the plaintiffs and in the second place he argued that even if the property was held to be self-acquired the gift in favour of the last male holder Deva Singh's grand-son's daughter could not be upheld vis-a-vis the collaterals.