IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.470 of 1998 Date of decision : May 21, 2010 Smt. Brijender Kaur …Appellant. Versus Smt. Satya and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms Charu Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This appeal, by one of the defendants in Civil Suit No.445/1 of 1989, titled Shibi Devi versus Smt. Brijender Kaur and others, is directed against the judgment dated 29th July, 1997 of learned first Appellate Court, whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 7th July, 1993 of learned trial Court, appeal has been dismissed. 2. A suit was filed by Shibi Devi, the predecessor of present respondents Satya Devi and Gorkhia (deceased, now represented by his LRs), seeking a declaration that she was owner in possession of suit land, as described in the plaint, on account of her being widow of one Matha, who Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… died in the year 1989. It was stated that Matha had been inducted as tenant on the suit land sometime prior to 1948- 49, by the predecessor of the present appellant Brijender Kaur, namely Sampuran Kaur, and the father of Ajit Singh and Avchal Singh, namely Raghubir Singh, and that ever since he had been in possession of the suit land till his death in the year 1989. It was stated that on account of coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he became owner of the suit land, by virtue of the provision of Section 104 of the said Act, on and with effect from the appointed day. It was further stated that said Matha had executed a Will in favour of present respondent No.1 Satya Devi and her husband Gorkhia, also respondent, who is now dead. It was alleged that Satya Devi was a grand-daughter of said Matha and Gorkhia was her husband. Further, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was wife of Matha and that she, being the wife, had inherited the right, title and interest of Matha in the suit land. It was stated that the Will did not bind her or affect her rights. 3. Suit was contested by the present appellant, who was impleaded as defendant, and also by Ajit Singh and Avchal Singh, who too had been impleaded as defendants. Satya Devi and Gorkhia did not contest the suit. 4. Contesting defendants filed similar written statements. It was stated that plaintiff had no locus standi …3… to file the suit. It was denied that Matha was a tenant on the suit land, under the defendants, who were the recorded owners of the suit land. Also, it was denied that said Matha had acquired ownership rights, under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Suit was alleged to be collusive between the plaintiffs and defendants No.4 and 5. It was also denied that the plaintiff was the wife of Matha or proforma defendant Satya Devi, now respondent No.1, was Matha’s grand-daughter. 5. Various issues were framed by the trial Court. Parties adduced evidence. At the end of the trial, it was held that the plaintiff is the widow of Matha and the defendants are causing interference in the suit land. It was also held that Satya, impleaded as proforma-defendant No.4, was grand-daughter of Matha. Plaintiff was held to have locus standi to file the suit. Suit was held to be maintainable. Further, it was held that there was no collusion between the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.4 and 5, i.e. Satya and her husband Gorkhia. Consequently, suit was decreed. Appeal filed by the present appellant in the Court of District Judge stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree. 6. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: …4… “1. Whether Shri Matha could be held to be a tenant over the suit land in the absence of the proof of the bilateral contract and cogent evidence showing that he was inducted as a tenant over the land in question? 2. When the status of Plaintiff Smt. Shibi as widow of Shri Matha was in dispute, was it not incumbent for Smt. Shibi to have based evidence in accordance with the provisions of Sections 50 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act and further was it not necessary for the courts below to put such controversy in issue? 3. Whether the right of tenancy became extinct on the death of Shri Matha, on account of executing a Will in favour of Respondents and in the absence of proof of his estate devolving upon any of his male lineal descendent, can the tenancy be considered to be continued after the death of a tenant who has no male lineal descendent and there being no proof that his estate devolved upon the widow whose status was in dispute? 4. Whether the right of tenancy could be bequeathed under the provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big-Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act as well as H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, whether such bequeath amounts to transfer as prohibited under the Statute? 5. When the status of the Defendant- appellant is shown to be widow, could it be held that Shri Matha left any Estate to be inherited on account of the disability as provided under the provisions of the relevant Statute? 6. Whether the courts below have erred in holding the suit to be within the period of limitation? 7. Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred for granting the relief as claimed by the Plaintiff in the suit? Is not it within …5… the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Reforms Officer to decide such question? 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Entries are there in the revenue papers right from the year 1948-49, per copies of Jamabandis Ex. P-2 for the year 1948-49, Ex. P-3 for the year 1952-53, Ex. P-4 for the year 1960-61, Ex. PX for the year 1984-85 and Ex. P-1 for the year 1989-90, showing Matha as tenant under the appellant or her predecessor and two other defendants, namely Ajit Singh and Avchal Singh. Also, there is an entry in all the aforesaid Jamabandis, to the effect that Matha used to give a part of agricultural produce to the appellant and the other two recorded owners, by way of rent. Hence, substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the appellant. 9. Coming to substantial question of law No.2, I find from a comparative reading of the plaint and the testimony of PW-1 Shibi that the plaintiff is not the widow of Matha. In the plaint, it is stated that Matha and the plaintiff had a son, named Sewak Ram, who died issueless. It was further stated that they had a daughter too, who predeceased them. It was also stated that proforma defendant No.4 Satya was the grand-daughter of Matha and plaintiff Shibi. When in the witness-box as PW-1, Shibi stated that Satya was daughter of deceased Matha and …6… herself. Again, in the examination-in-chief, she stated that marriage of Matha had taken place 80 years back and that he had married only once. In the cross-examination, she stated that her age was 65 years. Now, if her age was 65 years, how could have she married Matha 80 years back. This is especially so when she herself says that Matha had married only once. Again, according to the plaint, Satya Devi is the grand-daughter of Matha and plaintiff Shibi, but in her testimony Shibi testified that Matha’s son Sewak Ram had died issueless, during the life time of Matha. The two Courts below have not noticed these facts, while deciding the case. 10. In view of the abovestated position, it is held that plaintiff Shibi is not the wife of Matha. Of course, Matha had a wife named Shibi, but it appears that that Shibi was a different woman. From the above discussed evidence, it appears that Shibi was a woman different from the plaintiff. Question has been answered accordingly. 11. Otherwise also, plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit, when she herself stated that Matha had become owner, by virtue of provision of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and he had made a Will in respect of his estate in favour of his grand-daughter Satya. Also, the suit was not maintainable on this score. 12. In view of answers to substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 and the finding that the plaintiff had no …7… locus standi to file the suit and the suit is not maintainable, rest of the substantial questions of law need not be gone into. Consequently, appeal is accepted, judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court as also the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of. May 21, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J