RSA No. 4693 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 04.02.2011 RSA No. 4693 of 2010 (O&M) Prem Lal and others .....Appellants Versus Kuldev Singh and others .......Respondents RSA No. 502 of 2011 (O&M) Smt.Bimla Devi and others .....Appellants Versus Kuldev Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA RSA No. 4693 of 2010(O&M) 2 Present: Mr. A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate,with Mr.Rajinder Chuahan,Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Vide this order, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of by one common order as they have arisen out of the common judgment. Kuldev Singh and Satya Devi filed suit for declaration alleging therein that Jagtu was owner of the suit land. Durga was daughter of said Jagtu, who had died on 22.12.1990. Plaintiffs were the sons and daughters of Durgi. Durgi was entitled to succeed to the estate of Jagtu and Jallo. The mutations entered in the revenue record showing the defendants and other villagers as owners in possession of the suit land were illegal, null and void. Hence, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they had become joint owners of land measruing 259 kanals 7 marals. Defendants No. 1, 2, 5 to 7, 13 to 15, 17 to 26, 30 to 36 and 40 were proceeded ex-parte as they had failed to appear despite service. Defendants No. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 to 14,16, 27 to 29, 37 to 39, 40 to 54 averred in their written statement that Jagtu was not the owner of the suit land. It was also denied that Durgi was the daughter of Jagtu or that she has died on 22.12.1990. It was denied that the plaintiffs were children of Durgi. It was averred that the defendants had become owners in possession of the suit land by virtue of decision of the Civil Court. Defendant No.41 also took similar pleas in his written RSA No. 4693 of 2010(O&M) 3 statement as those taken by the other defendants. On the pleadings of the parties,following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are owners in joint possession of the suit properties?OPP 2.Whether the revenue record is wrong, if so its effect?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction prayed for?OPP 4.Whether the suit is bad in the absence of the application of order 1 rule 8 CPC?OPD 5.Whether the suit is barred by time?OPD 6.Whether there has been any previous litigation over the suit property ,if so its fate and effect?OPD 7.Relief.” Bimla Devi and Gurdev Lal filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were co-owners in possession of the suit land. In the column of cultivation in the jamabandi, some areas were shown to be in possession of Kishan Chand, Mashu Ram but they had no concern with the suit land. The land was mortgaged with possession in favour of Soma Devi for a sum of ` 90/- . Plaintiffs and other co-sharers had filed a suit for possession by way of redemption against mortgagee and a compromise was effected in the said suit. Mortgage money was paid and decree for possession by way of redemption was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit land described in part B of the heading of the plaint was,initially, owned by Durgi. The rights of the Durgi were limited in the said land as per customs. Durgi had forfeited her rights on her marriage with Chuni RSA No. 4693 of 2010(O&M) 4 Lal. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of Nirangoo, who was collateral of father of Durgi, on 24.7.1927. Nirangoo died issueless on 11.2.1932 and thereafter, the land was mutated in the name of Shamilat Tikka. Plaintiffs being owners of village became owner of Shamilat Tikka. The defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit land. Defendants, in their written statement, denied that the suit land had ever been mortgaged with possession. It was averred that Durgi was owner in possession of the land mentioned in para B of the plaint. Rights of Durgi were not limited in the suit land nor she had forfeited her rights on her marriage with Chuni Lal. Mutation, if any sanctioned, in favour of Nirangoo was illegal null and void. Durgi had continued in possession of the suit land and after her death in the year 1990, her estate was inherited by her children. On the pleadings of the parties,following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of the suit land as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction prayed for ? 3.Whether the suit is liable to be stayed u/s 10 CPC?OPD 4.Relief” Both the suits were decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 5.2.2000. The suit filed by Kuldev Singh and another was decreed and a decree for joint possession was passed in their favour. The suit filed by Bimla Devi and another was also decreed and defendants in the said suit were restrained from dispossessing RSA No. 4693 of 2010(O&M) 5 the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly except in due course of law. It was also held that Kuldev Singh and others could seek possession of the suit land in due course of law. Both the appeals filed by the aggrieved parties against the judgment and decree of the trial Court were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 3.8.2010. Hence the present two appeals. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeals deserve dismissal. Jagtu-father of Durgi Devi was owner of the suit land. He was survived by his wife-Jallo and daughter- Durgi Devi. After the death of Jallo, Durgi Devi inherited the property of Jagtu. Thus, admittedly, Durgi Devi was owner of the suit land. The question that requires consideration is as to whether she remained the absolute owner of the suit property or she had lost interest in the suit property after her marriage. Villagers-appellants had placed reliance on custom to support their plea that Durgi was left with no interest in the suit property after her marriage. However, the defendants had failed to establish their plea in this regard. Defendants were liable to lead some evidence that the custom was being followed that an unmarried daughter was entitled to retain the ancestral or self-acquired property of her father till death or marriage. In these circumstances, mutation could not have been sanctioned in favour of Nirangoo a co-llateral of Durgi, The children of Durgi were,thus, liable to inherit her property after her death. No substantial questions of law arise in these appeals. RSA No. 4693 of 2010(O&M) 6 Consequently, both these appeals are dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 04,2011 arya