IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.2739 of 2008 (O.&M.) Date of Decision: 4.5.2009 Satya Wati. ....... Appellant through Shri Dinesh Ghai, Advocate. Versus Baldev Singh. ....... Respondent through Nemo. 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. C.M.No.8077-C of 2008 The application is allowed and delay of 215 days in the refiling of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O.&M.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 29.11.2005 and 3.10.2007 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the District Judge, Ambala (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant were dismissed. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation nos.613 dated 19.12.1958 and 863 of 16.2.1957 and all subsequent R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O&M) -2- ... revenue entries in the jamabandis and khasra girdawaris on the basis of the above said mutations are illegal, null & void, inoperative and are not binding on her rights. It was also prayed that she be declared as co-owner and in joint possession to the extent of 1/2 share of the land in dispute as described in the plaint. It was pleaded that Inder Singh son of Sadhu Singh was the owner of the suit land, had a son by the name of Moti Singh. The appellant had averred that she was the daughter of said Moti Singh. It was further averred that Moti Singh pre-deceased Inder Singh in the year 1945 and at the time of his death, she was minor and was aged about four years. The appellant had pleaded that Inder Singh had performed Kareva marriage with Parbhi and Baldev Singh-defendant/respondent was born out of this Kareva marriage in the year 1954. She further pleaded that Inder Singh died on 19.5.1956 leaving behind, the appellant, Smt.Parbhi and the respondent. It was alleged that the entire land of Inder Singh was got mutated in the name of the respondent by Smt.Parbhi. It was further alleged that she was brought up and looked after by Smt.Parbhi and her marriage was also performed by the latter and all throughout she remained under the impression that the suit land was joint as the share out of the crops was being paid to her regularly till 2001 and when she went to village Ganauli where the suit land is situated to get her share from the crops, the respondent refused to give anything and declared that she had nothing to do with the suit land. The appellant pleaded that she then approached the revenue authorities and realised that a fraud had been practised upon her and consequently, she was constrained to file the suit. R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O&M) -3- ... Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed his written statement contesting the suit by pleading that it was barred by time as mutations under challenge were sanctioned in the years 1957 and 1958. It was further pleaded that the appellant is not the daughter of deceased-Inder Singh as alleged by her in the plaint. It was further pleaded that the respondent is in possession of the suit land on the basis of the valid mutations which were sanctioned about more than four decades back and the possession and ownership were on the basis of inheritance as the suit land was ancestral. The respondent averred that the appellant did not have any right to succeed to the estate of Inder Singh as according to Hindu Succession Act,1956 (for short, `the 1956 Act'), no right could accrue to her since Inder Singh died before coming into force of the 1956 Act and according to the law prevailing at the time the succession opened, she had no right in the suit land. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the mutation numbers 613 and 863 dated 19.12.1958 and 16.2.1957 respectively are illegal, null and void?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner and is entitled to joint possession of suit land to the extent of ½ share as alleged?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?OPD 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O&M) -4- ... form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence, the trial Court concluded that Inder Singh had died on 19.5.1956 whereas the 1956 Act came into force on 17.6.1956, i.e., after his death, and, therefore, no benefit could be obtained under the provisions of law by the appellant. It was further concluded that according to the provisions of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act,1937 (for brevity, `the 1937 Act'), which was in force at the relevant time, the appellant being the grand-daughter had no right in the property of her grand-father- Inder Singh. The suit was accordingly dismissed. On appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the mutations were sanctioned erroneously and the Courts have totally ignored this aspect of the matter. He further contended that the appellant had been receiving batai of the suit land till the year 2001 and it was only when the payment was stopped that she enquired about the status of the suit land and realised that the mutations had been entered in favour of the respondent and R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O&M) -5- ... thus, he contended that the findings on the issue of limitation are also erroneous. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. Concededly, Inder Singh died on 19.5.1956 while the 1956 Act commenced with effect from 17.6.1956. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Courts below that no benefit could be given to the appellant on this count cannot be faulted with. The appellant had claimed that according to the provisions of 1937 Act, she was entitled to inherit the property of Inder Singh. The relevant provisions of the 1937 Act are reproduced below according to which the following persons could have an interest in the property of a Hindu male, who died intestate:- “3.(1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu dies intestat leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow or if there is more than one widow all his widows together shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son: Provided that the widow of a predeceased son (cl) shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son,m and shall inherit in like manner as a son's R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O&M) -6- ... son if there is surviving a son or son's son of such predeceased son; Provided further that the same provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. (2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had. (3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Woman's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner. (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an estate which by a customary or other rule of succession or by the terms of the grant applicable thereto descends on a single heir or to any property to which the Indian Succession Act,1925, applies.” A reading of the above extracted provisions shows that the appellant, who was the grand-daughter of Inder Singh does not fall within the any of the categories of the heirs of a Hindu male who died intestate. Therefore, the conclusion of both the Courts below cannot be faulted with on the aforesaid proposition of law. R.S.A.No.2739 of 2008 (O&M) -7- ... That apart, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The appellant has pleaded that she was getting batai till the year 2001 and it is only when this payment was stopped that she came to know about the fact that the suit land had been mutated in favour of the respondent. No such evidence has been adduced by the appellant of batai having been paid by the respondent to the appellant. In this view of the matter, the mutations which were sanctioned in the years 1957 and 1958 could not have been challenged by the appellant in the year 2001 when there was no cogent explanation for the same. Looking at the findings recorded by the Courts below from any angle, no infirmity has been found therein. None of the questions of law as formulated by the appellant in paragraph 22 of the grounds of appeal is a substantial question of law, which needs determination by this Court. The appeal, being totally devoid of any merit, is dismissed. May 04,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge