TEK CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. MOOL RAJ AND OTHERS
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-66
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 08,1997

Tek Chand And Another Appellant
VERSUS
MOOL RAJ AND OTHERS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JAGAT RAM V. MAKHAN RAM [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH V. ASSTT. COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX V. SAMPATRAI BHUTORIA [REFERRED TO]
S.V. SUNDARASAN V. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX V. SAMPATRAI [REFERRED TO]
S.V. SUNDARESAN V. ASSTT. CONTROLLER [REFERRED TO]
KARTARI DEVI V. TOTA RAM [REFERRED TO]
KAUR SINGH GAJJAN SINGH V. JAGGAR SINGH KEHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH KUNDHA SINGH V. KEHAR SINGH DASAUNDHA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MST. TARO V. DARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BANSO V. KARAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HANS RAJ V. DHANWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR DASS V. RAJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR SINGH SANDHAWALIA V. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR CHAND V. ASHOK SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MAHLI VS. RANBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SINGH DEAD VS. DHAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
DIPO VS. WASSAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KALU VS. NAND SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAJGAN MAHARAJA JAGATJIT SINGH VS. RAJA PARTAB BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SIRDAR BAHADUR SIRDAR INDRA SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
KARNAIL SINGH ALIAS BACHAN AND ANR VS. NAUNIHAL SINGH AND ORS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

NAUDHA ALIAS BIDHIA VS. SUDARSHAN SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-1997-10-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M. Srinivasan, J. - (1.)This is one of the appeals posted before the Bench alongwith R.S.A. No. 196 of 1993 on the footing that a common question of law as to whether customary law in Punjab is abrogated by the provisions of Sections 4 and 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. We have disposed of R.S.A. No. 196 of 1993 on n3.4.1997 holding that the said question did not arise for consideration in that case. But it is seen from the facts of this case that the question requires to be decided in this case.
(2.)The appellants in this second appeal were the plaintiffs in the suit No. 10 of 1980 on the file of Sub Judge First Class Kangra. The prayer in the suit is for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property comprised in specified Khasra numbers to the extent of ⅔rd share therein and for an injunction restraining then defendants from interfering with their possession. Alternatively it is prayed that the plaintiffs must be granted a decree for possession of their share. According to the plaint, the property belonged to one Chamaru who executed a Will on 29.12.1967 bequeathing ⅔rd of the same to the plaintiffs who are his grand sons through his son Prabha and ⅓rd to his wife Chiri for enjoyment during her life time with vested remainder in favour of the plaintiffs. The said Chamaru died in Feb., 1970. In the Jamabandi proceedings in the year 1978-79 the plaintiffs were recorded as owners of⅓rd and defendants No. 1 to 3 were recorded as owners of another ⅓rd while the 4th defendant is recorded as owner of the remaining ⅓rd. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are the sons of Pappu, another son of Chamaru while the 4th defendant is Chiri, wife of Chamaru. Chamaru had another wife Jaiwanti for whom there was no provision in the Will. She did not also claim any share in the property of Chamaru. The plaintiffs have been repeatedly seeking correction of the registers claiming that defendants No. 1 to 3 are not entitled to any part of the property, but the latter had been trying to partition the land by making a claim to ⅓rd share therein. That was necessitated the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs.
(3.)The defendants resisted the suit on several grounds. According to the defendants, the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct from making a claim to the suit property. It is also their contention that Chamaru never executed the Will and if he had executed any Will it is against the custom prevailing in the area and it is not valid. It is also their contention that mutation was effected for ⅓rd share in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 pursuant to family settlement and the parties are bound thereby.


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