GIANO DEVI Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge (M. R. Ansari, J.), dated May 19, 1970. The appellant in the present appeal is the defendant in the suit whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'defendant' and the respondents as the 'plaintiffs'.

(2.) A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they were in possession of the suit property as its owners and, in the alternative, for possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property originally belonged to one Onkar Singh. He died on March 20, 1933 and, on his death, the property was inherited by his widow Smt. Giano Devi, the defendant, as a life tenant and mutation was attested in her favour on April 22, 1933. Four or five years after the death of Onkar Singh, the defendant contracted a second marriage with one Girdhari Lal of Tehsil, Pathankot and lived with him in his house and gave birth to seven or eight children through him. Due to this remarriage, the defendant forfeited her rights in the property of her husband and the said property reverted to the plaintiffs, who are the reversioners of Onkar Singh deceased. The plaintiffs were themselves in continuous possession of the suit property ever since the defendant married Girdhari Lal and she left the village where the suit property was situated. It was contended by the plaintiffs that the defendant was interfering with their possession in the suit property. As such, they filed the suit against the defendant.

(3.) The defendant in her written statement denied that she had married Girdhari Lal or that she had left the village of her deceased-husband. It was contended by her that she continued to live in the village and continued to be in possession of the suit property. In the alternative, it was asserted by her that even if she forfeited her rights in the suit property, due to her re-marriage, she continued to be in possession of the suit property for over twelve years and thereby perfected her rights in the property by adverse possession. It was contended by her that thereby she became the absolute owner of the suit property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.