Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 1244
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Madan, J.
Bhago
Versus
Satbir
Regular Second Appeal No. 1789 of 1981,
Decided On : MAY 30, 2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the effect of customary law on widow's rights.
Headnote:
Ram Dai - Property Inheritance - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Customary Law of District Rohtak - Mutation No. 333, 948, 340, 983 - The court discussed the inheritance rights of Ram Dai, the effect of unchastity on widow's rights, and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also considered the evidence of mutations and the customary law of District Rohtak in determining the inheritance rights of the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land. The plaintiff, Smt. Bhago, claimed ownership of the land based on her relationship with the deceased owners. The defendant, Satbir, contested the claim, asserting the inheritance rights of Ram Dai and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff on issues related to ownership and inheritance, but in favor of the defendant on issues concerning adoption, gift, will, and time limitation. The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.
Issues: The court considered various issues including ownership, adoption, gift, marriage, mutation, will, customary law, time limitation, adverse possession, and the effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the evidence of mutations, the customary law of District Rohtak, and the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court also considered the effect of unchastity on widow's rights and the applicability of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, ruling in favor of the defendant based on the findings on various issues.
1. This Regular Second Appeal No. 1789 of 1981 has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-5-1981 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. Following pedigree table of the parties would be relevant for the purpose of disposing of the present appeal :-
2A. The other relevant pedigree table of the parties (Ex.PW-5/10) of village Brahi is as follows :-
3. In brief, facts of the case are that Mam Chand and his uncle Daulat Ram resident of village Chhara Tehsil Jhajjar District Rohtak were co-sharer of the agricultural land situated in village Agarpur. They gifted ¼ share in the agricultural land to Puran son of Nathwa who was the brother-in-law of Mam Chand. The mutation in this regard was sanctioned on 22-1-1902. Puran died in 1904 and the land which stood in his name by way of gift was inherited by Smt. Dhan Kaur who was widow of Puran and sister of Mam Chand. Mutation No. 333 dated 29-9-1904 was sanctioned in her favour. Daulat Ram also died and mutation in respect of the land in his name was also sanctioned on 29-9-1904. Mam Chand thus became the owner in possession of - share and Dhan Kaur became the owner of the land to the extent of ¼ share.
4. Mam Chand had a son Badlu who married with Ram Dai died in the year 1917 without leaving any child. After the death of Badlu, Mam Chand adopted Shimbhu son of Ram Dutt who was the son of elder brother of Puran, husband of Dhan Kaur. Mam Chand made a gift of his agricultural land in favour of Shimbhu and mutation No. 340 dated 31-8-1919 was sanctioned in favour of Shimbhu. Mam Chand again made a will on 13-12-1924 in favour of Shimbhu his adopted son. Smt. Ram Dai widow of Badlu contracted a karewa marriage with Mool Chand son of Shiv Dayal. She also filed a complaint u/Ss. 107, 151, Cr. P. C. against Mam Chand on 5-3-1925 wherein a compromise was effected between Ram Dai and Mam Chand by which she relinquished all her rights in the property of her husband and the property of her father-in-law and she left the house of Mam Chand and began to live in the house of Mool Chand. Shimbhu, adopted son of Mam Chand also died in the year 1930 leaving behind Smt. Bhago the present plaintiff and one daughter Smt. Mahadevi. After the death of Shimbhu, Mam Chand made a gift of his agricultural land in favour of Smt. Bhago on 17-4-1935. Mam Chand died in the year 1936 and at that time the plaintiff was his only heir.
5. Smt. Dhan Kaur, sister of Mam Chand and widow of Puran died in the year 1947. After the death of Dhan Kaur, the land gifted to Puran in the year 1902, reverted to the donor Mam Chand. As the plaintiff was the only heir of Mam Chand, the land should have been mutated in her favour. But Smt. Ram Dai got a mutation sanctioned in her favour on 16-6-1947 in collusion with the Revenue Officials. This mutation is illegal, void and sanctioned in favour of Smt. Ram Dai without any right and is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff being an old lady having no male member to help her, could not know about the sanctioning of the mutation in favour of Smt. Ram Dai. After the consolidation of holdings took place the land fully detailed in para No. 15 of the plaint has fallen to the share of Smt. Ram Dai.
6. Ram Dai who had performed karewa marriage with Mool Chand forfeited all her rights in the property of Mam Chand. Plaintiff being the wife of Shimbhu, adopted son of Mam Chand, was the only person entitled to inherit the property left by Mam Chand. She not only succeeded in getting mutation sanctioned in her favour, but she also executed a will in favour of the defendant on 17-3-1954. Ram Dai died on 17-10-1972 and at that time of her death, she was not the owner of the land in dispute. She was not competent to give away this land to the defendant through any will.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, plaintiff Bhago filed the suit for the possession
