DEVINDER KAUR TOOR Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KIRPAL Singh, respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit for declaration claiming to be the owner in possession of the land measuring 24 Kanals 19 marlas out of 49 Kanals 17 marlas of land as share therein as also an amount of Rs. 22,702/69. The plaintiff alleged that he and Hartej Kaur are the son and daughter of Gurbachan Singh who was living in London and died on 9.6.1996. The deceased had one wife, Simar Kaur, having one son and daughter i.e. the plaintiff and Hartej Kaur. It is further alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no concern with the property of the deceased Gurbachan Singh. The plaintiff also pleaded that the deceased during his life time executed a Will dated 27.5.1989. Further the case of the plaintiff is that Manjit Kaur and Devinder Kaur are claiming to be the widow and daughter of Gurbachan Singh, have no relation with the deceased and are not the legal heirs of deceased Gurbachan Singh. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that the land in question situated at Ludhiana was purchased by deceased Gurbachan Singh from Balwant Kaur on 25.6.1996 and after his death, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and is also entitled to the amount of the Fixed Deposit.

(2.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit. It has been pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 and 4 are the widow, daughter and son, respectively of deceased Gurbachan Singh. It is further the stand of the defendants that defendant No. 1 was married to Gurbachan Singh in the year 1950 after his first wife Simar Kaur died. Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 were born out of the wedlock between defendant No. 1 and deceased Gurbachan Singh. Defendants also pleaded that the amount lying in Fixed Deposit also belongs to defendant No. 2. According to the defendants, defendant No. 1 was nominated as a beneficiary on maturity in the year 1997 and, thus, the amount was re-deposited by defendant No. 1 in foreign currency in a joint account with defendant No. 2.

(3.) THE plaintiff produced as many as five witnesses. No evidence was led by the defendant. During the course of evidence, defendant No. 1 also claimed right as an owner under the same Will dated 27.5.1988 which is relied upon by the plaintiff. However, it is claimed that she has acquired the fullfledged right being a female under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found that under the Will executed by deceased Gurbachan Singh, which is admitted by both the parties, defendant No. 1 was given a limited right during her life time. The Will further provided that after the death of defendant No. 1, the entire property was devolved upon the plaintiff and if the plaintiff pre-deceased defendant No. 1, the property shall go to the children of the plaintiff. Regarding the movables, it is provided that under the Will. On interpretation of the Will Exhibit P-2, the learned trial Court found that defendant No. 1 had has the limited interest during her life time and she has not acquired the ownership under Section 14(1) of the Act. It has been held that the case of defendant No. 1 is covered under Section 14(2) of the Act. Regarding the amount deposited in the Fixed Deposits, the learned trial Court declared both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to be entitled to the said amount in equal shares, but subject to obtaining succession certificate. Even though, defendant No. 1 was held to be having only limited interest, however, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as not maintainable and pre-mature during the life time of defendant No. l. The learned trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2003 in the aforesaid terms.