Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by Gurnam Kaur and another, Defendants -Appellants, against the judgment dated August 27, 1973, of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by them and confirmed the decree of the trial Court.
(2.) THE following pedigree table will be useful in understanding the facts of this case: (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please write to contact@ if the vernacular matter is required.) Mahla Singh was the owner of land measuring 319 Kanals and 19 Marias fully described in the plaint and situated in the area. of village Panjmala, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar, and on his death this land was inherited by his five sons in equal shares. It appears that his daughter Sham Kaur, Defendant No. 3, did not succeed to this land. Ram Singh, son of Mahla Singh, died on or about the year 1962 and his one fifth share in this land was mutated by the revenue authorities in the names of Gurnam Kaur, Defendant No. 1, and Malkiat Kaur, Defendant No. 2, who were alleged to be the widow and daughter respectively of the deceased. Amar Singh, son of Mahla Singh, died in the year 1966, before the filing of the present suit in the year 1968. Puran Singh, Sampuran Singh and Baru Singh. Plaintiffs, filed civil suit for the possession of one -fifth share of this land belonging to their brother Ram Singh, on the allegations that Gurnam Kaur, Defendant, was the wife of one Balwant Singh, who is still alive, that she never married Ram Singh deceased, that her marriage with Ram Singh, during the life time of her previous husband Balwant Singh was void, and that Malkiat Kaur, Defendant, is not the daughter of Ram Singh. It was, therefore, alleged that Gurnam Kaur and Malkiat Kaur were not entitled to inherit the property of Ram Singh and the mutation was wrongly sanctioned by the revenue authorities in their names and that they were entitled to succeed to the property of Ram Singh. Malkiat Kaur, Defendant, was minor at the time of the filing of the suit and Gurnam Kaur, Defendant, acted as her guardian -ad -litem. Gurnam Kaur in her written statement admitted that previously she was married to Balwant Singh, who turned her out of his house and thereafter she contracted Karewa marriage with Ram Singh, according to the custom prevalent among the Jats and her marriage with Ram Singh was valid and that Malkiat Kaur was born to her from the loins of Ram Singh, during the wedlock and the mutation was rightly attested by the revenue authorities in their names and there is no merit in the suit and it may be dismissed. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: (1) Whether Defendant No. 1 performed Karewa validly with Ram Singh deceased, if so its effect ? (2) Whether the Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Ram Singh ? (3) If issue No. 2 is proved then whether Gurnam Kaur Defendant is governed by custom in masters of Karewa marriage and if go what that custom is ? (4) Whether the suit is within limitation ? (5) Relief.
(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that Gurnam -Kaur did not perform any valid Karewa marriage with Ram Singh and that Malkiat Kaur was not the legitimate daughter of Ram Singh and he decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the Defendants. He held that no alleged custom of Karewa was proved and he decided issue No - 3 also against the Defendants. The suit was held to be within time and he decided issue No. 4 in favour of the Plaintiffs. As a result, the suit of the Plaintiffs was decreed. Feeling aggrieved Gurnam Kaur and Malkiat Kaur, Defendants, filed an appeal against that decree in the Court of the District Judge, which was finally heard by the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the decision of the trial Court on all the issues and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. Thereafter Gurnam Kaur and Malkiat Kaur filed this second appeal.;