Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby her suit for declaration challenging the order passed by the Collector on 19.3.1963 declaring the suit land as surplus without considering the claim of the plaintiff having 1/3rd share in the suit property being wife of late Ram Kishan was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff has pleaded that Ram Kishan died in the year 1947 leaving behind plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as his legal heirs but the mutation of the estate of Ram Kishan was sanctioned in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 10.6.1952 (Exhibit P. 2). The suit was contested by the State primarily on the ground that the order passed by the Collector is legal and valid and that the plaintiff was aware of the surplus proceedings. The proforma defendants have filed their objections in the surplus proceedings on 21.10.1959. The suit was also said to be barred by limitation and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
(3.) The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased Ram Kishan? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff also succeeded to the Estate of the deceased Ram Kishan at the time of his death in the year 1947? OPP 3. Whether the mutation of inheritance pertaining to the estate of Ram Kishan was wrongly sanctioned in the exclusive name of proforma defendant Nos.2 and 3 as alleged? OPP;