The widow's property rights evolved from limited to full ownership under the Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, and Hindu Succession Act, 1956, allowing her to validly sell joint family property post-enactment.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/ defendant against the judgment of affirmance.

2. Parties shall be referred by their original placement in the suit and will include their legal representatives substituted at different stages.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

3. Plaintiff(s) filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and if found to be dispossessed by the defendant over the suit land, then for recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that Sheofal Kahar was the common ancestor and he had raiyati land, and after his death, Bhagwat Kahar and Parmeshwar Kahar came into possession and their names were recorded with cadastral survey records of right. Parmeshwar Kahar died in the year 1938 leaving behind his widow, Basia Kaharin and minor daughter, Chhathani Kaharin. Chhathani Kaharin was married with Belash Kahar and settled in her matrimonial home.

5. Basia died in the year 1950-51 in the state of jointness with her husband’s brother Bhagwat Kahar and she was maintained by him and after death of Bhagwat Khar by the plaintiff. Bhagwat died after three years of the death of Parmeshwar. The plaintiff remained in possession over the disputed land.

6. Sale deed no.378 dated 05.03.65 purported to be executed by vendor, Basiya Kuar in favour of defendant(s) was forged and fictitious document. Being in possession, plaintiff(s) had been paying rent to the State. However, by suppressing notice, the land was mutated in favour of the defendant(s) with respect to the Schedule B land.

CASE OF DEFENDANT

7. Case of the defendant is that Sheofal Kahar had no raiyati land and he died prior to survey settlement operation leaving behind his two sons, Bhagwat and Parmeshwar. Both acquired land in Village- Kurkuta and their names were recorded in the survey settlement operation under Khata nos.13, 36 & 56. The two brothers constituted a joint Hindu family. Bhagwat died in the year 1945 and two years thereafter, Parmeshwar also died in the year 1947 leaving behind his widow, Most. Basia died in the year 1967 and she was not maintained by the plaintiff.

8. Most. Basia sold half share in favour of the defendant who happened to be her own maternal grandson by registered sale-deed executed on 05.03.1965. She died in 1967. Basia herself inherited half share in the suit land and she had her own house which she enjoyed in joint possession, till she sold her share in favour of her own daughter’s son in 1965. After the said purchase, defendant came in possession and got it mutated in mutation Case No. 14/1965-66.

9. A partition by metes and bounds of the land took place between plaintiff and this defendant. The said sale followed by possession was very much within knowledge of the plaintiff.

10. Parmeshwar kahar had left behind two daughters Chhathani Devi and Chanarkali Devi. Both were major and the time of the death of their father. Chhatharni was married to Ram Bilas Ram @ Ram Bilas Singh and Chanarkala was married to Ramprit Ram.

11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following main issues were framed:

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation and Specific Relief Act?

(iv) Whether Parmeshwar Kahar pre-deceased his brother Bhagwat Kahar in the year 1938?

(v) Whether sale deed executed by Basia Kaharin in favour of defendant in the year 1965 is valid, gen