Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
Dhanno and others - Appellant
Versus
Hari Ram and another - Respondents
R.S.A. No. 2344 of 1988.
Decided On : 20 August, 1996
PUNJAB OCCUPANCY TENANTS (VESTING OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS) ACT, 1953 - OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - KAREWA MARRIAGE - LIMITATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - REVENUE RECORDS - SECTION 59 OF THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT - SECTION 108 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - ARTICLE 58 OF THE LIMITATION ACT - PRESUMPTION OF LEGAL MARRIAGE - BURDEN OF PROOF - ATTESTING WITNESSES - KNOWLEDGE OF CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT - CORRECTION OF REVENUE ENTRIES - CAUSE OF ACTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, as heirs of an occupancy tenant, filed a suit seeking correction of revenue records and declaration of their ownership rights in the suit property. The defendants, claiming inheritance through a Karewa marriage between the deceased tenant's widow and another person, contested the plaintiffs' claim, raising various objections, including limitation and adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court, reversing the trial court's findings, held that the widow had indeed entered into a Karewa marriage after her husband's death, resulting in the forfeiture of her inheritance rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs, as the deceased tenant's sons, were entitled to equal shares in the property. The court also dismissed the defendants' limitation defense, finding that the plaintiffs' cause of action arose when their rights were challenged, not when the adverse entries were made in the revenue records.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3rd share in the suit land? 2. Whether defendant No. 1 contracted Karewa with Sh. Gainda after the death of Sh. Punnu, if so, what is its effect? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? 4. Whether the suit is time barred? 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action? 6. Whether the relief is vague and indefinite? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, on the death of an occupancy tenant, his male lineal descendants inherit the estate. 2. A Karewa marriage, if valid, results in the forfeiture of inheritance rights in the property of the previous spouse. 3. The presumption of legal marriage arises when a male and female live together for a long time as husband and wife. 4. The burden of proving knowledge of the contents of a document lies on the party relying on it. 5. Mere attestation of a document as a witness does not establish knowledge of its contents. 6. A cause of action for correction of revenue entries arises when the plaintiff's rights are challenged, not when the adverse entries are made. 7. Limitation begins to run from the date of denial of the plaintiff's rights, not from the date of an adverse entry in revenue records.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower appellate court's decision. The plaintiffs were declared owners of 2/3rd share in the suit property, and the defendants' claim was dismissed.
N.K. Kapoor, J. - It is defendants regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was accepted, thus decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.
2. Briefly put, one Dasondi son of Tota was the occupancy tenant. On his death, the land was inherited by his four sons, namely, Punnu, Gainda, Krishna and Hari Ram in equal shares which finds mention in the copy of jamabandi for the year 1934-35. Smt. Dhanno was married to Punnu. Punnu died 40 years back and after his death Smt. Dhanno contracted Karewa marriage with Gainda. According to the plaintiffs Smt. Dhanno by marriying Gainda forfeited all her rights in the property of Punnu and so this way three brothers, namely, Krishna, Gainda, and Hari Ram succeeded to estate left by Sh. Dasondi in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd share each, as occupancy tenant and subsequently on coming into enforcement of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953 (for short the Act) they became owners of the property and have been cultivating and still cultivating and so entries in the revenue record showing Smt. Dahnno to be owner of 1/20th share being widow of Gainda and 1/4th share being widow of Punnu are liable to be corrected.
3. Defendants resisted the claim set up by the plaintiffs. They raised few preliminary objections, namely that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit, that the suit is not within time; that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties; that the relief is vague and indefinite; and that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit. On merit, it has been stated by the contesting defendants that it is wrong to suggest that after the death of Punnu, defendant No. 1 contracted any Karewa marriage with Gainda. In fact, defendant No. 1 was his mistress. So after the enforcement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 she became full owner and thereafter on account of death of Gainda, defendant No. 1 being widow of Gainda have right to succeed to the estate left by Gainda.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 2/3rd share i.e. 1/3 share each in the suit land ? OPP
2. Whether defendant No. 1 contracted Karewa with Sh. Gainda after the death of Sh. Punnu, if so, what is its effect ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action ? OPD.
6. Whether the relief is vague and indefinite ? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD.
8. Relief.
The trial court took up issues No. 1 and 2 together and after discussing the oral as well as a documentary evidence decided both these issues against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 was not pressed at the time of arguments and so was decided against the defendants. Under Issue No. 4, the Court held that the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. Issue Nos. 5 and 7 were not pressed and so these were decided accordingly. Under issue No. 6 the court held that the suit is vague and indefinite and hence not maintainable in the present form.
Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
5. The lower appellate Court once again examined the matter on facts as well as on law. Primarily, counsel for the appellants assailed the findings of the trial court in respect of issues No. 1, 2 and 4. The lower appellate court on reconsidering the matter came to the conclusion that after the death of Punnu, Smt. Dhanno married Gainda (Karewa marriage) and gave birth to four children, namely Kura, Jai Bhagwan, Champa and Sita. The court further came to the conclusion that Champa was of 43 years; Kura Ram was of 40 years of age; Sita Devi was
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
