P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, confirming that of the trial Court, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession of the land in dispute.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of Smt. Soma, plaintiff -respondent No. 1, the land in dispute measuring 27 bighas and 4 biswas originally belonged to her father, Kishan Chand, respondent No. 2, who on 3rd June, 1944 gifted the same to Smt. Indi, plaintiff's mother, by a registered gift -deed and made her an absolute owner of the same. Smt. Indi died in November 1948, leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole heir. At the time of her death the plaintiff was only a minor. During her minority, her father, Kishan Chand, on 8th November, 1951 mortgaged 11 bighas and 2 biswas, out of the land in dispute, for Rs. 2,500/ - in favour of Brij Lal, appellant. Subsequently, on 8th September, 1952 he created another mortgage of 6 bighas and 2 biswas, out of the suit land, in favour of one Kishan Chand, son of Mathra Dass, for Rs. 1,000/ -. On 23rd April, 1955 respondent No. 2 sold the entire land in dispute in favour of the appellant for Rs. 8,000/ -. The mortgage in favour of Kishan Chand son of Mathra Dass had subsequently been redeemed. According to the plaintiff, all these alienations were void and inoperative as against her, because she was the real owner of the suit land and Kishan Chand had no right to alienate the same. She, accordingly, Drought the present suit for possession of the land in dispute. The suit was resisted by the appellant, who denied the allegations made against him by the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Smt. Indi that respondent No. 2 neither made a valid gift of the suit property in favour of his wife, Smt. Indi, nor was he competent to do so; that respondent No. 2 was governed by custom in matters of alienation and succession; that the appellant was entitled to protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act; that the suit had been filed in collusion with respondent No. 2 and that the appellant had effected improvements over the land in dispute after its transfer in his favour.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed by the trial Court.;