MOLAR AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SANTO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case:

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendants who admitted that the plaintiff and Natho were the daughters of Narma, but pleaded that the land in dispute being ancestral, they were entitled to get it in preference to the daughters, as they were governed by custom in matters of succession. It was also alleged by them that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time in as much as Narma had contracted Karewa marriage with one Piara in 1946 and about five years later she performed Karewa with one Kundan. The suit should have been brought within 12 years from 1946 when Narma forfeited her rights in the said land by Karewa marriage.

(3.) Against this decision, Shrimati Santo went in appeal before the learned District Judge, Sangrur. The learned Judge found that the defendants were third degree collaterals of Dewtia deceased. He, how -ever, reversed the decision of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and held that the defendants had failed to establish that the land in suit was ancestral qua them. On the question of limitation, his finding was that the suit was governed either by Article 141 or 144 of the Limitation Act and under both those Articles it was within limitation. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2, namely, that the parties were governed by custom in matters of succession was not contested before him. It was also found by the learned Judge, that Shrimati Narma had contracted Karewa with Kundan on 29th of July, 1955, and that the defendants had got into possession of the land only in the year 1956. On these findings, the learned Judge accepted the appeal set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendants have come here in second appeal.