Ram Lal v. Kaushalya
!" !
!#$% !%&'(')*+', -.
#/0#, **%,,#)$ 1#2(3#,4# %(*)5%)$ 6 7 0 0 00
!
""""" 0 00. +#, 1.
This appeal has been filed by appellant-defendant no.1, challenging judgment and decree dated 09.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby judgment and decree dated 10.04.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur, has been set aside. Learned trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2001. 2.
Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that plaintiff-Bhagwanti widow of Daulat Ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of 7/24 share out of land measuring 34 Kanals 17 Marlas in village Chaggran, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur as described and half share in the land measuring 19 Kanals 19 Marlas in village Mehatpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur and in the alternate, decree for possession of the suit property was sought.
3.
As per the plaintiff, suit property belonged to Daulat Ram husband of the plaintiff. Daulat Ram passed away on 05.09.1973 leaving behind his widow, four daughters namely Bimla , Kamla, Kaushalya and Parkasho, besides a son namely Ram lal and daughter-in-law Vidya widow of Paryag Singh (pre-deceased son). Plaintiff claims that parties constituted a Joint Hindu Family and suit property was coparcenary property with the plaintiff, being a Class-I heir, having a share in the same. She claimed that on the basis of notional partition before the death of Daulat Ram, she would be owner of 1/4th share along with Daulat Ram and his two sons Paryag Singh and Ram Lal. She claimed to have inherited 1/4th share of Daulat Ram and commensurate share from estate of Paryag Singh also. She thus claimed 7/24 share out of the disputed land.
She pleaded that her share in the property of Daulat Ram after his death is 1/ 4th and after death of Paryag Singh, she had inherited half share in the suit land. Defendant no.1-Ram Lal, it is stated earlier used to pay the commensurate produce of the land in question to plaintiff and when, he stopped depositing the same, she procured the jamabandis and it is only then it came to her knowledge that mutation of the estate of her husband was not sanctioned in her favour after his death, but was sanctioned in favour of Ram Lal son of Daulat Ram and Vidya widow of Paryag Singh (pre-deceased son) in January 1974 qua land in village Chaggran and in February 1975 qua land of village Mehatpur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. As the fraud came to her notice, she filed the suit in question.
4.
Suit was contested by defendant no.1-Ram Lal, present appellant while stating that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit in question by her own act and conduct as after the death of Daulat Ram in the year 1973, plaintiff herself submitted an application before the revenue
officials for sanction of mutation of the land in village Chaggran, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur on the basis of Will dated 01.09.1973 by Daulat Ram in his favour and in favour of Vidya widow of Paryag Singh (pre-deceased son of Daulat Ram) in equal shares. Plaintiff and all daughters of Daulat Ram duly recorded their statement to this effect before the A.C. Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur, on which mutation was sanctioned on 28.01.1974. It is further pleaded that mutation of land in village Mehatpur was also sanctioned on 27.02.1975 on the basis of the said Will. Suit, it is stated is barred by limitation. It was further denied that property in question was coparcenary or Joint Hindi Family property. Property was stated to be the self acquired property of Daulat Ram. Dismissal of the suit was sought. 5.
All other defendants including the widow of Paryag Singh filed written statement, admitting the claim of the plaintiff. 6.
From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1.
Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 7/24 share out of the land measuring 34 K 17 M land 1⁄2 share from the land measuring 19 K 19 M?OPP 2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land in the alternative? OPP 3.
Whether the property in dispute is joint property of the parties?OPP 4.
Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by her own act and conduct?OPP 5.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 6.
Whether the mutation of shop of Daulat Ram was sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 28.01.1974. 7.
Relief.
# $ % & ' ( ' )* *+ **)
8
( ' ,( , ( - % ,).#+%).#/ -
('( ' - 0 ' , , - 1 2 ( 34 20) '34 20 34 .
5 -, $'(
2 6' 7 ' * ) **) ' - ( ( ( , 5- - ' -, , (
- 8 ) ' , ,
* * ** ' ' ) ,( , , ).#+0#/ - ( , , 6' -, (' - '-,$'( )*
2 6'7 ' *.
*+ ** ( ( ' ' )* + **) 8 ( 0 , - 1 9 ( - ,9 9 -, -
8 :7
, 8 ( -, , -, ( - 8 ( ,( (,' ' ;
9
)) '' - ) < ( ) ) **! ( ' ( '- 9 ( 0 ) 1 ( ' ' ' '
- 0 ' = ) - 9 - -,
, - - < - , - (' ' - -, ) ', - 80 ' - , ( ( ,' ' - ' ' 1 ( 4 8 , -( )+ !( ' ' - -
' *.
*+ ** -,
6' 7 - , ' 8 - 9 ' - , , ,- - 1 7( 1
*) *.
).# - 1 - -4 -,2 ,
1 - ( - ( - - - 8 , - )/ 7 ' ' ( - )!
8 , 9 -' 2
-$'( )0
-,
( (2
,-,(, ' '' ( (', & *) ).#+ # * ).#/ 34 20) 34 20 , >( ' ( - - , 9 - 1 *) *.
).# 8 ( ' ''( ( - 1 - - , - 34 20) )# <' ' - 0 4 , 4 ' 9 '
( 9 7(
- , -, - 1 *) *.
).# 8 1 9
-1 ' )) ).# 34 20) 34 20 1 2 - 0 9 8
8 ). /? @ ;A1 -,7 ,-
(
'
! 0 : ;%&2$') 2)*+'<',%=%5>',,(B3, - ' , 4
'' ( ) ,'' 4 1 ' ( ' B ?A < ' 4 > 1
- '-, -, ?-A < ' > ' ' ' -
( -, '
(
'1 ?A <1 - -, (( ( ' 4 > 1 ' 1 -, >(' ' > ' C ( ' 1 - - , ( - -, )& !/ ( '1 !! > '4 ' ' !/!! 0 E 9 +'<',%=%5 >',,(B, - ' , 4
'' ( ,'', - ' , ' ' , ,-, !!
1 '1 8
-
?
A '
, , 4
7 ,, 4
> '1 ?
A 0 ( 7
- ' > '1 ?
A ' ' '' ( > '1 ?
A ,' ,( , ' - 7 > '1 ?A (- ( , , ' - > '1 ? A ' ,4
- - ' > '1 5% /#?')=. #)5 +2,%( + %;%&2$')=. *+'<',%=%5 >',,(@ ?)A ' 1 , - (
' , - -, ( ? A <4 '1 -'-, ( ' B ?A < 1 , - ( (, -, ( ( 8 - ' ?-A 8 ,-( (, -, '-, 8 - ?A 8 ' -1 ( (, -, '-, - - 1 ( (( -, ; ' 1 ?A 8 4 -, (
-, -
04 --, - - ,
4 ?A 8 ( 1 - - - 4 - 1 ?A 8 ( ( '
- ,- (
' - - -4 - 1 ' , , - (
' ?'A < ,>1 -,( -, ' - (( ?A 1 -, ( - 4 - ' - > '1 D ).
/# ?A ( 888 - , 1 -, , $ >6 ,6,). # ( -, ?A ?-A 8 ( /#( 0888 9 ! - ( ,1 4 -,7 ! 9 1 - (
'
!/ ' 4 ' 1 - 888 < *) *) ). # -9 - ' 4 -, 7 4
'' ,- 2 $ '
2 7 ' 2)'$#3'<#5#(#)'A( %%$# '5B#)'#)5#)$3%+
-'<',9-
8
-, 4 ' ,
: '- ' 7;- /$#B#+)'A(/$)5%+1#2+.
'<', 8( - , 4 ' , ,- ( , 8 --, 7 '
/$#/1#2+'A(/$0#&3/'!%<'#)5$3%+(.
0 9 1 >( (( ' , '-, 4 -, /$#/1#2+'C( ?A ( - - 9 7;- '$%)5+#')=3A(3%$#$% #534#+#5%(3#)5 $3%+(.
8'<',-- 0 E$ ,
( , , ' , ,
( , (
,( , ' - - ( , ( '
% ' - ( % ' ' , , - - , ,- D * < , - 1 -, ( -, 7 ' 2+#) ')=3#)5$3%+(A(!#,'*1#2+.
8'<',- .
9 -1 ( ( - , -, 7 ' #)'#/ 5%&%#(%5 $3+2=3 0 2D3#(3 A( /$ 2/'$+# #)5 $3%+(.
09 . ( 9 -, , 9 ( '
' 9 ' 8 ( ' ,( 9 9 8 ' ( - - 9 ' ) ,( ( ,' '02 ( - , 1 ( 8 - ,-,
2 6' 7 0 E)& < - , 34 20) 34 < ( , ( '
* )) ).# - 2 ,( - 2 *) *.
).# 2
( */ *.
).# < ' 34 20 *+ ) ).# ( ' ( , , - 0 ))), < )- ( 9 , '
8 ' -,
*# *) ).#+ -,
)- , & *) ).#+ ) - < ' -, ' - 2 ',,( ' - !- ' 0 ) < ' ( )+ , - , -' D
( - , ( , 9 - 1 ',- 9 ( (' 23.
L (- ,
' , , , ' ' *.
*+ ** -,
2 6'7 + Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground whatsoever to interfere in the impugned judgement and decree dated 09.04.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, and the same is upheld.
/ F ' - 26.
9 , ( ' % , ?0 00A *+', -.
!
> 1 > '% G%F 1 -
G%F