HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.306 of 2000 & CO No.574 of 2000 RFA No.176 of 2000 & CO No.220 of 2001. Reserved on: 14.7.2011 Decided on: 4.8.2011. RSA No.306 of 2000: Savitri Devi (dead) through LR Roma Devi ……Appellant. Versus Nirmala Devi and another ………Respondents. RFA No.176 of 2000: Savitri Devi (dead) through LR Roma Devi ……Appellant. Versus Jagdial Negi and another ………Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant(s): Mr.B.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma, Advocate. ________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - V.K. Ahuja, J.: Present regular second appeal being RSA No.306 of 2000 has been filed by the original appellant Savitri Devi, now represented by her legal representative, (hereinafter also referred as the plaintiff), against the judgment and decree of the court of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur, dated 22.11.1999, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Rampur, dated 30.6.1986, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, was allowed partly and the suit was partly decreed. 2. A regular first appeal being RFA No.176 of 2000 was also filed by Savitri Devi against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur in Civil Suit No.2 of 1999/91. 3. Cross objections were preferred by the respondents in both the appeals. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Savitri Devi filed a suit for eviction as against defendants, as an indigent person. It was alleged that the land comprised in Khara No.470, which was entered as Banjar in the revenue record, was shown in the name of Smt.Rani Sahib Dhadi Shanti Devi, widow of late Raja Padam - 3 - Singh and in possession of Bashindgan Chak and now denoted by new khasra No.568/470. It was alleged that out of the above mentioned land, a portion of the land being Khasra No.470/1 was sold to late husband of the plaintiff, namely, Basant Ram by Smt.Rani Sahib Dhadi Shanti Devi through her power of attorney Thakur Durga Singh in the year 1963 for a consideration of Rs.1,000/- and the possession was also delivered to late Basant Ram. Thus, the husband of the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land and planted apple trees. The plaintiff alleged that she is legally wedded wife of late Basant Ram and no other marriage was solemnized by late Basant Ram and the plaintiff was the only wife of her husband, who died in the year 1972 and till his death, the suit land was being cultivated by husband and wife jointly. In the year 1972, after the death of Basant Ram, the defendant came forward and posed herself to be the wife of late Basant Ram and claimed possession of the suit land, which resulted in dispute and initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in which the defendant was adjudicated to be in possession of the suit land vide order dated 25.9.1978 passed by SDM, Rampur, and she was put in possession of the suit land without any right, title and interest. It was alleged that the defendant had - 4 - no right, title or interest to possess the land of Basant Ram as she is not the wife of Basant Ram and the plaintiff is the only legal heir of deceased as his widow. The cause of action accrued on 25.9.1978 when the defendant was put in possession, hence the suit filed by the plaintiff. 4. Defendant contested the suit by pleading that she was the only legally wedded wife of Basant Ram and out of her wedlock, one son Jag Dayal Negi was born on 10.11.1971 and she was in physical possession of the property of deceased Basant Ram and the plaintiff had no right over it. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, some issues were struck on 25.4.1984 and I need not reproduce the same since they are not required for discussion. 6. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge vide his impugned judgment partly allowed the appeal and held that the suit out of which the appeal has arisen shall stand dismissed qua the reliefs claimed vide clauses (a) and (b) and the same is decreed for the relief under clause (c) in the above terms with regard to the provision of maintenance for life in - 5 - favour of the plaintiff. The relief of residence in favour of the plaintiff and defendant was also given for life in the above terms. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of the court of the learned District Judge, but in view of the intervening developments that the original plaintiff has died and she has been succeeded by her legal representative and the court had granted the relief of maintenance as well as residence in her favour till her life time, it was submitted that the order of maintenance as well as residence till her life time be maintained and those findings are not being challenged by the appellant at this stage. It is, therefore, clear that once those findings as recorded by the learned First Appellate Court granting maintenance and residence are not being challenged, the original appellant/plaintiff is held entitled for the grant of maintenance as per the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge till she was alive. Once this amount is deposited as - 6 - per the judgment and decree, the legal heirs of the plaintiff/appellant shall be entitled to that amount, which had accrued in favour of the original plaintiff till she was alive. No other relief was being claimed in the present appeal in view of the developments in the case and in view of the death of the original plaintiff. Therefore, the regular second appeal is dismissed, of course, with the above clarification. 9. The original appellant Savitri Devi had also filed regular first appeal against the common judgment and decree of the court of the learned District Judge, but no infirmity was pointed out in the findings recorded by the learned District Judge and in view of the developments in the case, the regular first appeal as also the cross objections were not pressed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 10. Both the appeals as also the cross objections preferred in both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. August 4, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.