Decided on August 28,1950

Ganda Singh And Ors. Appellant
Fateh Singh And Ors. Respondents


S.K. Kapur, J. - (1.) THE point for decision in this Defendants' appeal is whether reversioners of the half -blood are excluded by those of the full blood. It may perhaps be necessary to refer to the pedigree table to understand the facts of this case. The pedigree table is as follows:
(2.) THE land in dispute was held by Bachint Kaur, the widow of Bhagwan Singh, and on her death 2/3rd of the estate was mutated in the names of Defendants 1 to 4, who are the descendants of Kesria by his second wife Kauran and l/3rd in the name of the Plaintiffs, who are the descendants of Kesria by his first wife Bardhan. The Plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration that the mutation of property given in the plaint would not affect their reversionary rights as the parties are governed by the chundawand rule and not by the pagwand rule. They also prayed for possession of land measuring about 9 bighas which Defendant 5 had taken possession of land, in the alternative for possession of land entered in the plaint. Out of the land in suit Bachint Kaur had mortgaged some land in favour of Defendant 5 by means of a mortgago deed executed on 1 -6 -1943 for Rs. 3300 and the Plaintiffs alleged that the mortgage was with -out consideration and legal necessity and was, therefore, not binding on them. As to the rest of the land their allegation was that they were in possession and hence they were suing for a mere declaration, and in the alternative they prayed that they might be given a decree for possession of the entire land. They based their claim on the rule of succession being chundawand and not pagwand. In their reply the Defendants pleaded that the rule of succession was pagwand and even if it was chundawand it had been abrogated and was no longer applicable to the parties. Several issues wore stated, which were: (1) Whether the rule of succession in parties' family is chundawand? (1 -a) If it is found that rule of succession in parties' family was chundawand at one time, then has that rule been; abrogated ? (2) Whether the land mortgaged by Mt. Bachint Kaur is ancestral qua the Plaintiffs and, if not, its effect on the suit? (3) Did the mortgage by Mt. Bachint Kaur take place for consideration and necessity? (4) Whether the entire land in dispute is ancestral qua the Plaintiffs and, if not, its effect? (5) Relief.
(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge found that Grewals of Mauza Jhanda, which is the village of the parties, and particularly in the family of the parties the rule of succession was chundawand and that that rule must be given effect to in spite of the fact that it had not been followed by the Grewals of other villages of the district. He relied on several instances which will be discussed later. With regard to the mortgage he held that it was for consideration and necessity, and be decreed the Plaintiff's suit for declaration. Against this decree, the Defendants took an appeal to the learned District Judge, who affirmed the decree of the trial Court, and the Defendants have come up in second appeal this Court.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.