The judgment emphasizes the application of the Hindu Succession Act in determining property inheritance and the order of succession among heirs of a female Hindu.

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J. - This order of mine shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing RSA No.3144 of 2017 titled as "Madan and another vs. Ram Narayan Singh and another at the instance of the defendants and RSA No.6343 of 2017 titled as "Ram Narayan Singh vs. Prem Bai and others, at the instance of the plaintiff. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 04.01.2017, whereby the suit of the plaintiff, though dismissed by the trial Court, has been decreed in part.

2. The plaintiffs sought the declaration by challenging the mutation No.1960 of deceased Champa Devi, sanctioned in favour of Prem Bai, to be illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, with consequent relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property in any manner. It was alleged that the plaintiff and his son, were owner in possession and in cultivation of the land, but the defendants had no concern as they neither cultivated or remained in possession. Uncle of the plaintiff, namely, Kalu Ram, who was married to Champa Devi, died issueless and after his death, the property was inherited by his wife Champa Devi. Mathura Singh was the brother of Kalu Ram. He was married to Dhaka, who died in the year 1984. Both of them had two children, namely, Ram Narain-plaintiff and Rattan Bai. The mother of defendant 1 to 3, died in the year 1957 i.e. pre-deceased Champa Devi, who died on 01.02.1966.

3. Defendant No.1 was proceeded ex parte. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 filed the joint statement and opposed the suit. It was alleged that it was without cause of action. There was no relation of the plaintiff with Champa Devi.

4. The plaintiff in support o f the pleadings examined two witnesses and brought on record Ex.PW1/A, special power of attorney executed by his father, Ex.PX, Mark C, Mark B, photocopy of the mutation. On the other hand, the defendants examined two witnesses and brought on record many documents.

5. The trial on the basis of the evidence dismissed the suit, however, the lower Appellate Court, as noticed above, decreed the suit in part.

6. Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) in RSA No.6343 of 2017, submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit into to was perfectly legal and justified.

7. Mr. Chauhan, further submitted that the share of Champa Devi could not be inherited by Dhaka as the surviving male heir of Mathura Singh, brother of Kalu Ram, was the plaintiff Ram Narain. In support of his contentions, he referred to the provisions of sub Clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 15, Section 16, Section 9 and Schedule of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as well as the ratio decidendi culled out by this Court in "Devi Ram vs. Shanti Devi" (2004) 2 RCR (Civil) 821 , thus, urges this Court for setting aside the findings, under challenge.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book as well as records of the Courts below and of the view that there is no merit and force. The finding of the lower Appellate Court, conferring the ownership regarding the share of Champa Devi upon Ram Narain and Dhaka, is the correct view.

9. It would be apt to reproduce the provisions of sections 8, 9, 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, which read as under:-

"section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 8. General rules of succession in the case of males.-The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter-

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;

(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

section 9 of the Hindu