PERMOD KOHLI,J - (1.) THE judgment and decree dated 03.01.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Narnaul, allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.1979 passed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Rewari, is impugned in this Regular Second Appeal.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are like this :- The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for possession of 1/6th share of the agricultural land measuring 348 Kanals 14 Marlas alongwith rights in Nal Chah, well, Gatwar etc. situated in the revenue estate of village Berli Khurd, Tehsil Rewari, against defendant Nos. 1 to 10. They claimed share for themselves as also for defendant Nos. 11 to 31. It is alleged in the plaint that one Har Narain was ancestor of the plaintiffs. He had three more brothers, namely, Jag Ram, Jas Ram and Mukh Ram. All the three brothers died issueless and Har Narain became owner of the suit property. Har Narain had four sons, namely, Udmi, Bhoru, Shadi and Murli. Murli died during the life time of Har Narain. Murli had two sons, namely Chhaju and Chiranji, who were minors at the time of death of Murli. One Sheo Lal son of Anta and Makhan son of Chunna got their names entered in the revenue record showing themselves to be sons and heirs of Har Narain. It is further alleged that their names were entered in the revenue record but the possession of the land remained with the descendants of Har Narain. Sheo Lal and Makhan applied for partition, which was stayed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon as in the meanwhile their title was challenged. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon, allowed the parties to get the question of title decided in the Civil Court. The descendant of Har Narain i.e. the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that Sheo Lal and Makhan are not the sons of Har Narain and were not the co-sharers in the suit land. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.1929. In an appeal preferred, the learned District Judge Gurgaon, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, vide his judgment and decree dated 21.07.1930. Second Appeal was preferred by Sheo Lal and Makhan before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the case was remanded giving opportunity to Sheo Lal etc. to lead evidence in rebuttal before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, who was seized of the case. On remand, the parties entered into a compromise and a compromise decree came to be passed. In terms of this compromise, Sheo Lal was given limited right to use the land in question without any right to alienate or mortgage the same. It was further agreed that on the death of Sheo Lal without any male lineal, his surviving wife would also have the limited right in the land, which comprises of 1/6th share of the total estate of Har Narain. Under the compromise, it was also stipulated that after the death of the widow in the absence of a male lineal, the land will revert back to the plaintiffs i.e. the heirs of Har Narain, who will be entitled to take possession and Makhan will have no right over the land. It may be relevant to reproduce the extract of the compromise decree, which reads as under :- "After the death of Sheolal respondent without a male lineal descendant and without the survived of his widow, if any, his share in the land in dispute will revert to plaintiffs and Makhan respondent shall not be entitled to succeed him to the extent of Sheolal's share in the land in dispute and the same condition will apply if Sheolal leaves a widow who dies after coming in possession of her husband's share or in any of the case when the rights of the last holder of this share of Sheolal are extinguished. During the life time of Sheolal he will not be entitled to sell or mortgage his share in any case. The plaintiffs have agreed to deliver possession of the portion of the remaining land in suit in their possession to respondents by June, 1933, and the parties will bear their own costs throughout." Sheo Lal died somewhere in the year 1961-62. On his death, mutation was entered in favour of Smt. Chhimli and daughters of Sheo Lal. Smt.Chhimli also died in the year 1976. On the death of Smt. Chhimli, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession of 1/6th share, which was earlier held by Sheo Lal and after his death, Smt. Chhimli, allegedly holding a limited estate. The suit was resisted by defendants No. 1 to 10, on three counts :- (1) That Sheo Lal was a occupancy tenant over the land by virtue of the Punjab Act No. 8 of 1951, as such he is entitled to be declared as owner; (2) That after the death of Sheo Lal, his widow Smt. Chhimli acquired absolute ownership right by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act; (3) That Sheo Lal and his successors have acquired ownership rights by way of adverse possession. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.6.1979 held that Sheo Lal was not a occupancy tenant. He came in possession of the suit property by virtue of the compromise decree and, thus, could not claim ownership rights under the Punjab Act No. 8 of 1951. The plea of defendants No. 1 to 10 regarding adverse possession was also not accepted. The learned trial Court also held that Smt. Chhimli is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (herein after referred as "the Act") as she had limited right under the decree of the Court and in this way the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, will not apply and her estate is not enlarged into full ownership. It has also been held that the limited right granted to Smt.Chhimli is not heritable by her heirs and the same will revert to the plaintiffs in terms of the compromise decree dated 23.12.1932. The learned trial Court found that by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Act, Smt. Chhimli's right of limited estate cannot be converted into a full fledged ownership rights.
(3.) THIS judgment and decree became the subject matter of challenge before the learned District Judge, Narnaul, who has reversed the same. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the learned trial Court as regards the right of Sheo Lal under the compromise is concerned, by holding that Sheo Lal and Makhan were entered as sons of Har Narain and, thus, they had pre- existing right and the compromise decree cannot restrict their rights. The learned First Appellate Court also ruled that by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act, the limited estate of Sheo Lal is enlarged into full fledged ownership rights by operation of the law and thus, the plaintiffs could not enforce the compromise decree against Smt. Chhimli and her heirs were entitled to inherit the property of Smt. Chhimli under the Act aforesaid. The learned First Appellate Court, accordingly, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants.;