Decided on July 25,1997

KAMLA Respondents

Cited Judgements :-



KAMLESH SHARMA,J. - (1.)This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30th September, 1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu whereby he decree and judgment dated 22nd August, 1989 of the trial Court was affirmed, dismissing the suit of the appellant -plaintiff filed against the respondents defendants for possession of the suit property detailed in Para 2 of the plaint and, for brevity, referred to as "the suit property".
(2.)The brief facts, which are not in dispute, are that one Hirday Ram was the last male holder of the suit property. He had three wives, namely, Smt. Kubja, Smt. Pah and Smt. Uttamdassi. Smt. Kubja predeceased Hirday Ram leaving behind one daughter, namely, Smt. Tikami. The plaintiff Shakuntala Devi is the daughter of said Smt. Tikami. Hirday Ram had executed a will dated 1 -10 -1938 whereby he had bequeathed certain lands and a house to his daughter Smt. Tikami and the suit property was given to his widows, namely, Smt. Pari and Smt. Uttamdassi, for the purposes of maintenance provided they lived in his house and remained chaste and did not squander away the property, it was further provided \n the will that after the death of the widows, the suit property would also go to his daughter Smt. Tikami, who would be its complete owner. A further wish was expressed by Hirday Ram in the will that if the widows felt any difficulty in maintaining themselves from the suit property, it would be the obligation of his daughter Smt. Tikami to look after them.
(3.)One of the widows, namely, Smt. Pari, had died in the year 1939 and her estate came to Smt. Uttamdassi who held it as limited owner. By sale deed dated 28 -11 -1958, Smt. Uttamdassi sold a part of the suit property, as mentioned in the plaint, to one Sandup son of Tashi Todar, the predecessor -in -interest of defendants No. 1 and 2. Vendor Sandup further mortgaged it to Smt. Uttamdassi. On 2 -12 -1958 Smt. Uttamdassi further gifted another part of the suit property, as mentioned in the plaint, to defendant No. 3 who further sold it to defendant No

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