DAMAN SINGH PRABHU DAYAL Vs. MAKTUL KAUR
LAWS(P&H)-1954-10-4
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 15,1954

DAMAN SINGH PRABHU DAYAL Appellant
VERSUS
MAKTUL KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act against an order of the senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, dated 31-5-1954, refusing to appoint a receiver and ordering the return of moveables which were taken in possession by the Court to the respondent. The following pedigree-table will be of assistance in understanding the nature of the present dispute: prabhu DAYAL ___________________|_____________________ | | daman Singh Shri Krishna | (died on 29-10-1947)| = Mt. Maktul Kaur _______|________________________________________ | | | | kailash Chand Vijey Singh Kuldip Singh Moti Lal
(2.) ON the death of Prabhu Dayal on 15-6-1952 disputes arose between Daman Singh and Mt. Maktul Kaur during the mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities when Daman Singh alleged that his real son Kuldip Singh had been adopted by Mt. Maktul Kaur and that as such he was entitled to succeed to one half of the property of Prabhu Dayal deceased, while Maktul Kaur denied the adoption set up by Daman Singh and claimed that she had a right to succeed to the property left by her father-in-law as the widow of his predeceased son Siri Krishan under the hindu Women's Bight to Property Act 18 of 1937.
(3.) WHILE proceedings were still going on before the revenue authorities, Daman Singh on 3-1-1953 applied under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the appointment of a guardian of Kuldip Singh minor's person and property and it was stated in" the application 'inter alia' that the respondent was wasting minor's property and that as minor's person is in danger the applicant has put him in the custody of his maternal uncle in 'mauza' Nangal Pathani. Then on 23-1-1953 he filed an application which appears to have been written on 2-1-1953 for the appointment of a receiver of minor's property. This application came up for 'ex parte' hearing on 2-2-1953 and the Senior Subordinate Judge Shri Mehr Singh, issued notice to the respondent for 21-2-1953 and directed Shri Dalip Singh Pleader to go to the spot as Local Commissioner, to prepare a list of the moveables of Prabhu Dayal deceased and then to hand over the property to a responsible 'sapurdar' and ordered him to make a report on or before 9-2-1953. It is surprising that Shri Mehr Singh, Senior Subordinate Judge, did not consider it proper and expedient to issue notice to the respondent before appointing the Local Commissioner. Next day daman Singh made another application and prayed that as Mt. Maktul Kaur will forcibly resist the Local Commissioner when he goes to her residence to take possession of the moveables, a strong police force should be placed at the disposal of the Local Commissioner. On 4-2-1953 the senior Subordinate Judge issued notice to Shri Dalip Singh Pleader to act as Local commissioner and also wrote a memorandum to the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, to make arrangements so that the Local Commissioner is not interfered with during the discharge of his duties. Next day the Local Commissioner prepared list 'a' and delivered the properties to a 'sapurdar'. On 7-2-1953 Daman Singh again applied that Mt. Maktul Kaur with the assistance of her helpers did not permit the Local Commissioner to complete the list and prayed that the Local commissioner should be ordered to complete it even if in the process he has to break open locks and doors of rooms.-- This prayer was also granted by the Senior Subordinate Judge and this drastic order was passed without giving any notice to Mt. Maktul Kaur and accordingly on 8-2-1953 lists 'b' and 'c' were prepared and the properties mentioned therein were handed over to 'sapurdars'. On the next day, Mt. Maktul Kaur made an application to the Court that the property taken from her possession belongs to her and not to Kuldip Singh whose adoption she denied. She further alleged that she had been insulted and harassed at the time when the property was taken from her and prayed that it should be returned. Thereafter it appears that some other persons also claimed part of the moveables mentioned in the lists. The Court, went through the evidence and rejected these third persons' claim and it was not till 31-1-1954 that the application of Mt. Maktul Kaur for return of her goods was allowed and Daman Singh's application for appointment of a receiver was dismissed and the present appeal is directed against this order. It may be stated here that the main application for the appointment of a guardian is still pending in the guardianship Court.;


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