D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) ONE Harnam Singh on 16.10.1930 sold the land measuring 103 Kanals and 15 marlas to Lal singh son of Sahel Sing and Hira singh son of and Luhara Singh. Buta Singh successfully challenged the said alienation and secured a declaratory decree, dated 18.6.1934.
(2.) ARJAN Singhm, Jagir Singh and Sodagar Singh, sons of Buta Singh, filed the present suit for possession of the said land on 20.4.1967 on the basis of the aforesaid declaratory decree. In para 4 of the plaint, they averred that Harnam Singh, the vendor, died on 16.4. 1967. The suit was contested by the vendees through their heirs, namely, Kartar Singh, Sardara Singh, Gulzara Singh Jagir Singh and Arjan Singh sons of Hira Singh; Gurdial Singh and Kartar Singh sons of Lal Singh; Harbans Kaur, Kulwant Kaur and Kirpi daughters of Lal Singh; Hari Singh son of Smt. Bibi, daughter of Lal Singh and Smt. Nihal Kaur widow of Lal Singh, inter alia, on the ground of limitation The trial, court on the basis of the pleadings of the patties framed the following as one of the issues: When Harnam Singh died and whether the suit is within limitation? The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of its being barred by limitation The abovesaid heirs of the vendee challenged the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in appeal. 3. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court one Ind Kaur claiming herself to be the daughter of Sher Singh, brother of Buta Singh, the original holder of the declaratory decree, dated 18.6.1934 filed an application praying to be impleaded as one of the parties to the suit being the heir of Sher Singh and hence entitled to take the benefit of the declaratory decree. Her application was opposed by the plaintiffs i.e. Arjan Singh, Jagir Singh and Sodager Singh sons of Buta Singh. The trial court, by its order, dated 1.1.1968 dismissed her application and declined to implead her as a party to the suit on the ground that she was not the kind of heir who could take the benefit of the declaratory decree, dated 18.6.1934, so not entitled to a share in the land covered by the said decree, and hence could not join as a party to the present suit.
(3.) HOWEVER , during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court at the instance of the said sons of Buta Singh, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Giani Ram. v. Ramji Lal : AIR 1969 SC 1144, held that they were unable to agree with the High Court that because in the year 1920 the wife and the daughters of one Jawala were incompetent to challenge alienation of ancestral property by Jawala, they could not after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, inherit his estate when succession opened out after that Act came into force, as in their view a declaratory decree obtained in a suit instituted by a reversioner competent to sue pad the effect of restoring the property alienated to the estate of the alienor and all persons who would but for the alienation had taken the estate would be entitled to inherit the same the facts which led their Lordships of the Supreme Court to hold as such were that one Jawala alienated his property but his reversioners challenged the said alienation and secured a declaratory decree against the vendee. The said Jawala died after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. His three sons, two daughters and a widow sued for possession of the land alienated by Jawala on the basis of the said declaratory decree. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge decreed the suit for one -half share in the property claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that only the sons of Jawala could claim the benefit of the decree and since their share in the estate of Jawala was in the aggregate only one -half, the remaining half having devolved on the widow and the two daughters, a decree for one -half share in the land alienated could be passed against the alienee i.e. the vendee. In appeal, the lower appellate Court decreed the claim of the plaintiffs in its entirety, but the High Court on a second appeal set aside the decree passed by the lower appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court holding that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the two daughters and the widow of Jawala could inherit a share in the estate of Jawala, but since by section 8 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act 1 of 1920 only those persons could take the benefit of the declaratory decree obtained by any one of the reversioners who could contest the alienation by the vendor and it was a "settled rule of custom that a female heir cannot contest the sale by a male owner, a half share in the estate of Jawala which devolved upon the sons could be claimed by them, and the widow and the daughters could not obtain benefit of the decree.;