Arun Palli, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 7744 -C of 2013.
(2.) FOR the reasons set out in the application, delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Main Appeal: Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.05.2011. Appeal preferred against the said decree also failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2013. That is how the plaintiff is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(3.) IN short, plaintiff i.e. Sushila wife of late Shri Raj Krishan sought a declaration that she and her daughter (defendant no. 7) had earlier filed a suit against Raj Krishan son of Gorkha under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for brevity -the Act), which was allowed by the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana. Pursuant to the said order, plaintiff and her daughter were regularly getting maintenance from Raj Krishan. It was averred that post -filing of a suit under Section 18 of the Act, Raj Krishan clandestinely transferred the land without any consideration to Dinesh Kumar son of Raghbir, who happened to be his nephew. A suit challenging the said alienation by Raj Krishan was stated to be pending in the Civil Court at Narwana. Gorkha son of Ptram -father -in -law of the plaintiff expired and the plaintiff learnt about his demise in the first week of May 2006. It was maintained that Gorkha was recorded as owner in possession of an agricultural land to the extent of 1/5th share in a land measuring 111 kanals 4 marlas situated at Village Chhatar. Thus, Gorkha owned 20 kanals 13 marlas out of the total land. Plaintiff, along with proforma defendants, were alleged to be entitled to succeed to the extent of 1/6th share in the estate of Gorkha after his death. Thus, the suit.;