MOHINDERO Vs. KARTAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 30,1990

MOHINDERO Appellant
VERSUS
KARTAR SINGH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KANAKPRABHADEVI NARPATSINHJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2001-2-34] [RELIED ON]
URMILA DEVI VS. NAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODARI DEVI AND ORS. VS. DHANI DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-4-122] [REFERRED TO]
KANAKPRABHADEVI NARPATSINHJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2001-1-82] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.)Kissi was the sister of two brothers named Kisso and Ditto. Santi married these two brothers one after the other. She first married Kisso from whom she gave birth to a son named Buta. After the death of Kisso she remarried the other brother Ditto. Ditto also died issueless. Buta who was born out of the wedlock of Kisso and Santi also died leaving a daughter named Mohindero.
(2.)On the death of Ditto the mutation of his estate was sanctioned in the name of Santi being his widow. She was, thus, in possession of the land-holding of Ditto as a life-estate. Santi executed a gift-deed dated December 27, 1955, of the said land, in favour of Mohindero daughter of her son Buta. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') came into force with effect from June 17, 1956. Santi died on October 6, 1956.
(3.)Kissi filed a suit for possession on the ground that under the law she was a preferential heir and the suit property had been illegally mutated in the name of Mohindero. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on May 27, 1963. It was held that without challenging the gift in favour of Mohindero, the suit for possession was not competent. Meanwhile Kissi died and her heirs went up in appeal before the District Judge. An application for permission to amend the plaint, so as to challenge the validity of the gift was also filed before the District Judge. The appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The District Judge also allowed amendment of the plaint and remanded the case for fresh trial. While holding the gift to be invalid, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of Limitation. The District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court on the issue of limitation and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. A Learned single Judge of the High Court reversed the findings of the Courts below on the issue of limitation, set aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Courts and decreed the suit. The Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on May 6, 1980. This appeal by the defendant Mohindero via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
;


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