IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 7 of 2005 Date of Decision: 23.1.2009 Smt.Raksha Devi and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Randeep Singh, Advocate. Versus Som Nath and others. ....... Respondents through Shri Ravi Sharma and Shri Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal by the defendants is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.8.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the judgment and decree dated 3.5.2002 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guhla (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were set aside. The facts of the case are that the suit property belonging to Atma Ram, who was married to one Smt. Chambi Devi,who died after giving birth to Bachna Ram and Ram Murti. Thereafter, Atma Ram married with Smt.Kako Devi from whom he had two sons and one daughter, namely, Som Nath, Devi Raj @ Devi Ram and Debo Devi alias Devi. R.S.A.No.7 of 2005 -2- ... Smt. Kako Devi died in the year 1996 intestate. After her death, the land owned by Smt. Kako Devi, as detailed in the plaint, was mutated in equal shares in the names of the children of Atma Ram vide mutation no.7125. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit challenging mutation no.7125 on the ground that their step-brother and step-sister had no right, title or interest in the estate of their mother,Smt.Kako Devi and further that the mutation in question had been sanctioned without any notice to them and as a result of collusion. A prayer for injunction was also made seeking to restrain Bachna Ram and Ram Murti from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. Bachna Ram and Ram Murti contested the suit and pleaded that the mutation is perfectly valid as they were the son and daughter of Atma Ram through Chambi Devi. They further pleaded that being the children of Atma Ram, they were entitled to 1/4th share of the suit property. It was also averred that the suit property was ancestral in the hands of their father-Atma Ram and after the death of Smt.Kako Devi, the mutation of inheritance was rightly sanctioned in equal shares between them and the plaintiffs. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land being only legal heirs of Smt.Kako Devi wd/o Atma Ram died in the year 1996 and mutation no.7275 was legally sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs?OPP 2. Whether mutation no.7125 has been illegally sanctioned in R.S.A.No.7 of 2005 -3- ... favour of the defendants to the extent of 2/5th share and is result of collusion and mis-representation of facts between defendants and revenue Patwari?OPP 3. If issue no. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed?OPP 4. Whether the suit land is ancestral in the hands of Atma Ram deceased owner in possession thereof and defendants have pre-existing rights in the suit land by birth and mutation no.7125 has rightly been sanctioned in their favour?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs were well within the knowledge of attestation and sanction of mutation no.7125 in favour of defendants?OPD 6. Whether the defendants have right to deal with the suit land in any manner being owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/60 share?OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action?OPD 10. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 11. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 12. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and R.S.A.No.7 of 2005 -4- ... frivolous?OPD 13. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the true and material facts from the court, as alleged?OPD 14. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by observing that Bachna Ram and Ram Murti were also born from the loins of Atma Ram and they had equal right to succeed the estate of Smt.Kako Devi. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were reversed and it was held by the First Appellate Court that Bachna Ram and Ram Murti being the step-son and daughter qua Smt.Kako Devi had no prior right to succeed to her estate according to the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 (for short, `the Act'). Feeling aggrieved, the widow, sons and daughter of Bachna Ram and Ram Murti have filed this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants,while assailing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, contended that the findings recorded by it are erroneous as the property was ancestral and, therefore, the appellants acquired an interest in the estate of deceased-Smt.Kako Devi. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents contended that Bachna Ram and Ram Murti,being step-son and daughter of Smt.Kako Devi were precluded from a share in her property. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be upheld. R.S.A.No.7 of 2005 -5- ... Section 15(1)(a) of the Act reads as under:- “15(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx” It is clear from the facts of this case that Bachna Ram and Ram Murti were the step-son and daughter qua Smt.Kako Devi and, therefore, they were not entitled to any share out of the estate of Smt.Kako Devi, who had died intestate. Similar view was expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lachman Singh Versus Kirpa Singh and others, AIR 1987 S.C. 1616, wherein it was observed as under:- “The word “sons” in cl. (a) of S.15(1) does not include “step- sons” i.e., sons of the husband of the female dying intestate by another wife. Step-sons fall in the category of the heirs of the husband referred to in cl.(b) thereof. Therefore, a step-son of the Hindu female dying intestate does not inherit share in her property simultaneously with her son.” It is also to be noticed that after the death of Atma Ram, Smt.Kako Devi had succeeded to his estate. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the property was ancestral is not borne out from any evidence on record. This plea was raised by Bachna Ram and Ram Murti themselves but no material was brought forward to substantiate the same. R.S.A.No.7 of 2005 -6- ... Consequently, there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, which are affirmed. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. January 23,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge