N.C. Jain, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff Bakhtawar Singh against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below dismissing his suit for possession of land measuring, 357 Kanals 8 Marlas.
(2.) The facts of the case regarding which either there is no dispute or which are otherwise proved on the record of the case are that one Mahi had a son Karma. Karma had two sons Jeon Singh and Nathu, who in turn had two sons Sedha and Deva. Sedha had one son Wazir alias Dhuli whose son as Lalu. Lalu had one son Maghi. Reverting back to other son of Nathu, that is, Deva, he had two sons Kahan Singh and Atra. Kahan Singh had two sons Maru and Jiwa. Jiwa whose sons are alive are Jagga Singh, Zora Singh, Labh Singh and Gurdev Singh. The above mentioned facts are either stated in the plaint or proved in Exhibits R-3 and R-4, the two pedigree-tables. These two pedigree-tables have been produced before the Appellate Court below by way of additional evidence and have been proved in rebuttal to the additional evidence produced by the plaintiff-appellant.
(3.) Maghi died issueless in the year 1939. According to the averments made by the plaintiff, he was succeeded by his sister Indi, who has wrongly been described to be the wife of Maghi. Suit. Indi succeeded to Maghi as a limited owner of the land in dispute and she made one gift deed and a sale deed on 27th June, 1954. The sale deed was effected in favour of defendants 1 to 4, whereas the gift deed was executed in favour of Bant Singh defendant No. 5 the above mentioned two alienations gave rise to the filing of declaratory suit by Bakhtawar Singh appellant and his mother Nand Kaur on the usual grounds that the alienations were without consideration and legal necessity etc. etc. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 29th June, 1955, and the alienations were set aside and it was held that the alienations would not affect the reversionary rights , of the reversioners. The first appeal filed by defendants No. 1 to 4 was dismissed on 30th November, 1955, and the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, were affirmed in second appeal, on 8th March, 1956. After the aforementioned round of litigation came to an end, Bant Singh defendant No. 5 gifted back that land to Suit. Indi which was gifted to him. This happened on 10th January, 1958. Smt. Indi, on getting back the gifted land from Bant Singh sold the same to defendants 8 to 15. At this stage, it is necessary to notice that defendants No.1 to 4, to whom the land was sold, made an alienation of that land, in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7, by virtue of two registered sale deeds, dated 7th February, 1964 and 20th January, 1965. Smt. Indi died in 1973. After her death, Bakhtawar Singh plaintiff-appellant alone filed the present suit for possession as Nand Kaur had already died in 1963. The defendants resisted the suit for possession on the ground that Suit. Indi had become absolute owner of the property. The two sets of defendants, that is, defendants No. 6 and 7 and defendants No. 8 to 15, contested the suit by filing separate written statement. Defendants No. 8 to 15 contested the suit by averring that since Suit. Indi get back the gifted property from the donee, she became the absolute owner after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, they derived a perfect title from Smt.Indi, who was absolute owner. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 took up the plea that they were the bona fide purchasers within the meaning of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the plaintiff is not the preferential heir to take possession. On the basis of rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property on the death of Mst. Indi? 2. Whether Indi was absolute owner of the property sold by her to Major Khazan Singh, Ranjit Singh and defendants No. 9 to 11, by annulment of gift to Bunt Singh due to gift back by donee Bant Singh and its effect? 3. Whether defendants No. 6 and 7 are bona fide purchasers, without notice for consideration in good faith? 4. Whether sale in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7, is protected by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. Whether defendants No. 6 and 7 have become the owners by adverse possession? 6. Relief. The learned trial Court, under issue Nos. 1 and 2 held that the plaintiff has failed to show that he was the nearest heir of Maghi deceased and, therefore, could not succeed to the estate of Indi. As regards the gift, it was held by the trial Court that since the gifted property after annulment of the gift had been reconveyed to Smt. Indi, she as an absolute owner could pass a valid title. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were not decided in favour of the defendants. Under issue No. 5 pertaining to adverse possession, defendants 6 and 7 were held not to have become owners by adverse possession. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant, the findings recorded by the trial Court, were affirmed. It may be observed at this stage that before the first appellate court, the plaintiff was allowed to produce additional evidence in rebuttal, to which the defendants also produced evidence in the shape of pedigreetables Exhibits R-3 and R 4, on the basis of which it was found that Jagga Singh etc. sons of Jiwa Singh, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Judgment, were nearer heirs, to Maghi, as compared to the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, the sale deeds effected by defendants No. i to 4, in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7, were valid.;