SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition filed Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the question to be determined is whether Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1937) which came into force with effect from 14.4.1937 was applicable in the erstwhile State of Bikaner or not at the relevant time.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: (i) The present writ petition relates to Araji Nos. 24, 25 and 44 respectively measuring 52.5. 5.11 and 22.11 bighas situated in village Killawali, Tehsil Sadul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar. (hereinafter referred to as the land in question). (ii) That the present litigation substantially is between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 on the other hand. (iii) The petitioners' mother Smt. Narain Kaur filed a suit on 28.7.1960 against late Shri Kishan Singh for partition and declaration of the land in dispute alleging inter alia that the land in dispute was the ancestral property of Shri Gokha Singh who died some 25 to 26 years before filing of the suit and was survived by two sons Kishan Singh and Keshar Singh. The respondents No. 4 to 9 are legal representatives of Kishan Singh who died during pendency of the suit while Keshar Singh, petitioners' father expired bit later and had one son Teksingh who also died issueless and his widow Harnam Kaur remarried and therefore, the land was claimed to be inherited by the plaintiff Narayan Kaur being the widow of Keshar Singh. It is alleged that Kishan Singh clandestinely and with intention of usurping the land got it mutated in his own name while the plaintiff Narayan Kaur claimed half share in the property. During pendency of the litigation the plaintiff Narayan Kaur expired and the petitioners being the daughters of plaintiff Narayan Kaur and Keshar Singh were substituted as her legal representatives. (iv) Through judgment dated 2.4.1973, the learned trial Court after retrial of the suit, decreed the suit of the petitioners inter alia holding that Gokha Singh had two sons, out of whom Keshar Singh had expired and was survived by Tek Singh who also expired and was survived by his widow Harnam Kaur who remarried. It was also found that the land in question was ancestral one and thus, the plaintiff Narayan Kaur was entitled to partition and share in the land. It was also found that on the death of Keshar Singh and Tek Singh and in view of Harnam Kaur having remarried, Narayan Kaur inherited and after her death, the present petitioners became entitled to the share of Keshar Singh which according to Hindu Law, the plaintiff Narayan Kaur was entitled to l/3rd share and the defendant was entitled to 2/3rd share, and that judgment is Annex.3. (v) Aggrieved from that judgment both the parties preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority through his judgment dated 31.3.1978 (Annex. 4) decided both the appeals and also came to the conclusion that the Act of 1937 was applicable and the lady acquired life estate and it was further found that live estate enlarged in favour of the petitioners with the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Court further found that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/2 share in. the property. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was partly allowed. It may be stated here that this 1/2 share was given to the plaintiff because the learned Revenue Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the provisions of Act of 1937 were applicable in the present case. (vi) Aggrieved from judgment dated 31.3.1978 (Annex. 4) the defendants (respondents No. 4 and 5) filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue through judgment dated 23.8.1979 allowed the appeal and dismissed the petitioners' suit in toto inter alia holding that provisions of Act of 1937 were not in force in the erstwhile State of Bikaner and therefore, the findings of the appellate Authority that it was in force were found erroneous one. For coming to the above conclusion that the Act of 1937 was not in force in the erstwhile State of Bikaner, the Board took support of the fact that no notification by which provisions of the Act of 1937 were made applicable in the erstwhile State of Bikaner have been produced by the petitioners and thus because of this fact, it was found that the Act of 1937 was not in force and further more after going through the provisions of Bikaner Tenancy Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1945) specifically Section 22 of the Act of 1945, the Board of Revenue held that Act of 1937 was not applicable in the erst while State of Bikaner and thus the Board came to the conclusion that Narayan Kaur and after her death, the petitioners were not entitled to any share in the disputed land and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. (vii) Aggrieved from the judgment of Board of Revenue dated 23.8.1989, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. In this writ petition, the only prayer which has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the case may be remanded back to the first appellate Court i.e. RAA so that this question whether the provisions of Act of 1937 were applicable or not may be re -examined and they may also place some relevant documents before that Court.
(3.) IN my considered opinion this argument is not at all tenable in a writ petition purported to be filed Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;