R.S.A. No.395 of 1986 1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.395 of 1986 Date of decision 19.07.2011 Zora Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Smt. Surjit Kaur and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Harleen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.1984 decreeing the suit of Smt. Surjit Kaur-plaintiff was dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Surjit Kaur was given the house in dispute by his late husband-Sh. Hira Singh, for her use and enjoyment for life time, with the condition that she would have no right to alienate the same in any manner. An agreement to this effect was scribed by Hira Singh in favour of Smt. Surjit Kaur-plaintiff on 17.04.1965. She resided in that house from 17.04.1965 up to 09.12.1981. Hira Singh died, thereafter, the property was inherited by Darshan Singh as his son from the second wife of Hira Singh namely Mahinder Kaur, who too had died after sometime. On 09.12.1981, the defendants forcibly dispossessed Smt. Surjit Kaur-plaintiff, from the house in dispute alledging that defendants No.2 and 3 had purchased the property from Darshan Singh-defendant No.1. This suit was decreed to the extent that plaintiff was entitled to possession of 1 ½ share of the house. 3. Aggrieved against this judgment the vendees went an appeal which R.S.A. No.395 of 1986 2 was also dismissed. 4. This is Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellants. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 6. As per the claim made by respondent-plaintiff vide agreement dated 07.04.1965, the house in question was given to the respondent by her husband during her lifetime. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as respondent-Smt. Surjit Kaur died on 25.04.1998. After the death of Smt. Surjit Kaur Darshan Singh, her step son is the only legal heir. He was proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, the sale made by the Darshan Singh in favour of the appellants is protected by the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, being bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. It is clear from the record that property was given by Hira Singh, to his wife Smt. Surjit Kaur-respondent for use by her during her lifetime, it was limited estate. The suit was decreed to the extent of 1 ½ share. After the death of Smt. Surjit Kaur, her step son being the sole surviving heir became absolute owner. The right to sue does not survive. In view of the fact that Smt. Surjit Kaur has since died, the ownership of the subsequent purchasers from Darshan Singh became absolute. Therefore, this appeal has been rendered infructuous. 7. To confirm the death of Smt. Surjit Kaur-respondent in pursuance of order dated 30.07.2010, passed by this Court, a report was called from the SHO, Payal. Which confirms the assertion of the appellants regarding the death of Surjit Kaur. 8. Dismissed as having become infructuous. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 19.07.2011 JUDGE Jyoti 1 Note: Whether to be referred to reporter? No