- (1.) This is a second appeal filed by Shrimati Shanti, plaintiff, against the judgment dated 30.11.1967 of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, by which he accepted the appeal of the defendants-vendees and dismissed her suit with costs throughout.
(2.) The detailed facts have been given in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge but in order to decide the controversy that has been raised before me, certain salient facts may be noticed. Shrimati Shanti, plaintiff, brought a suit for possession of land measuring 73 Kanals 4 Marlas on the basis of a will (Exhibit P. 1) in her favour. It was pleaded that her father-in-law Risala had executed a will dated 6.11.1963 in her favour and as such she became the owner of the suit land under the said will, that her husband Land Chand and one Shrimati Rukman conspired with the revenue authorities and got the mutation of suit land sanctioned in their own names, whereas they had absolutely no title to the suit land. The suit was strongly resisted by the defendants. They denied the factum and validity of the alleged will. They pleaded that Shrimati Rukman was the daughter's daughter of Risala and that Lal Chand and Shrimati Rukman were the only heirs of Risala. They further pleaded that the plaintiff had admitted her husband Lal Chand as the owner of the land in dispute by affixing her thumb-impression on the sale-deeds executed in favour of the defendants and thus she was estopped from disputing the ownership of Lal Chand and Rukman. Finally, they claimed protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act by having purchased the property in good faith for consideration. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :- (1) Whether Risala deceased made a valid will in favour of the plaintiff ? (2) Whether the property is ancestral qua Risala and his son ? If so, to what extent ? (3) Whether Smt. Rukman is the daughter of the daughter of Risala, deceased ? If so, to what effect ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from finding the present suit on the ground stated in para 18 of the written statement of defdt. Nos. 3 to 6 ? (5) Whether defdt. Nos. 3 to 16 are protected under Section 41, Transfer of Property Act ? (6) Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? (7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form and it is necessary for the plff. to sue for setting aside the alienation ? (8) Relief.
(3.) The Subordinate Judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed her suit. The lower-appellate Court, on appeals at the instance of the respective vendees, affirmed the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 but reversed the finding on issue No. 5 and dismissed the suit while allowing the appeals. Hence, the present appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff. I have perused the record and heard the arguments.;