VIJAY SINGH Vs. JULFA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Julfa Devi, respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub -Judge, Nahan, for declaration to the effect that she alongwith her sister Kalawati (proforma defendant No. 6 in the suit) were in possession of the suit land measuring 9 -15 Bighas comprised in Khata 1 min, Khatauni No.2, Khasra Nos. 187, 220, 222, 258 and 420 situate in village Daro Dewaria, Tehsil Pachhad. The averments in the suit were that the suit land was owned by defendants No. 1 to 5 (appellants herein). It was alleged that Shankru, father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 was a non -occupancy tenant on the said land. On the death of Shankru his widow Devku Devi came in possession of the suit land. After her death, her tenancy rights were inherited by her daughters i.e. the plaintiff and defendant No. 6. Mutation conferring proprietary rights of the said land in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 was attested. However, the defendants started interfering in the suit land and hence the suit.

(3.) IT would be pertinent to mention that defendant No. 6 filed a written statement supporting the stand of defendants No. 1 to 5. In this written statement, she submitted that her father Shankru was only in occupation of two Bighas of land and the entries in the revenue record showing him to be tenant on more than 9 Bighas of land were stated to be incorrect. It was also alleged that in the month of January 1991 the plaintiff agreed to relinquish 1 Bigha of land out of the aforementioned 2 Bighas in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5. It would be pertinent to mention that this written statement is exhibited as Ext.DD. Thereafter Kalawati sought leave to amend the written statement. This permission was not granted. By means of this amendment, the defendant No. 6 wanted to amend the written statement and admit the claim of the plaintiff. This prayer for amendment was rejected. Kalawati, however, appeared in the witness box and made a statement that she had not engaged any Counsel in the case nor filed any written statement. She admitted that she had engaged Mr. M.K. Jain, Advocate, as her Counsel but states that when she came to know that something hanky -panky is going on, she engaged Shri V.C. Jain, Advocate. She stated that she had not engaged any Counsel previously. According to her, her father was in possession of 9 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which was inherited by her mother and then by herself and the plaintiff. According to her, they are cultivating the said land. She denied that they had ever relinquished any land in favour of defendants No. 1 to 5. She has admitted her signatures on the various documents, i.e. the original written statement as well as the application for amendment and the amended written statement. She was confronted with the certain portion of the original written statement where she had supported the case of defendants but denied that the written statement was written on her instructions. She also took up the plea that her mental state was not proper and she had been undergoing treatment on this count.