The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in favor of females and the recognition of pre-existing rights in determining property ownership.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

The defendants (appellants herein) assail the correctness of concurrent findings of the fact arrived at by the subordinate courts while decreeing the suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.

Some facts are required to be noticed.

Late Sh. Rikhi Ram @ Rikhi was the owner in possession of the suit property. He married to Smt. Akki, however, but owing to differences, they did not stay together. On an application filed by Smt. Akki, the Court directed Rikhi Ram to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs.20/- per month.

However, he was unable to pay the amount of maintenance as per the directions of the Court and therefore, executed a document to grant a limited estate of the land measuring 7 bighas of land in favour his wife Smt. Akki in lieu of the liability to pay her the monthly amount of maintenance as directed by the Court.

Smt. Rampati (Late Smt. Akki's daughter) was married to Sh. Purshotam. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) are children of Smt. Rampati and Sh. Purshotam. Smt. Rampati predeceased Smt. Akki on 31.12.1983.

After the death of Smt. Akki, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming the property being her heirs. Smt. Akki. It is claimed that the defendants, without any right, title or interest, have started interfering in the suit property. In this case, defendant Ram Saran entered appearance in the suit but did not file the written statement. Subsequently, he expired and his legal representatives were brought on record. Still, no written statement was filed.

Consequently, their defence was struck off vide an order dated 01.04.2008.

The plaintiffs examined Bhag Singh-plaintiff No.1 as PW1, Ram Pratap as PW2, Randeep Singh as PW-3 and produced various documents. Defendants did not lead evidence as their defence was stuck off.

Both the Courts, on the appreciation of evidence, have concurrently found out that as the suit land was given to Smt. Akki by her husband in recognition her right of maintenance, therefore, in terms of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act”), her right stood enlarged into absolute ownership and therefore, the plaintiffs being heirs of Smt. Akki are owners of the said land.

During the pendency of the present appeal, the defendants have filed an application with a prayer to summon the record of Civil Suit No.451 of 1981, titled as “Rampati Vs. Ram Karan and others”, decided on 12.12.1983, by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Ambala City. It will be noted here that the defence of the defendant was struck off by the trial Court and they did not file any application before the First Appellate Court. In this court also, they have not filed any application for permission to lead additional evidence. The defendants themselves have produced a copy of the order passed on 12.12.1983. On perusal thereof, it is clear that Smt. Akki was granted permission to file a fresh suit subject to the payment of the cost of Rs.40/-. Thus, the summoning of the record of the aforesaid suit would not advance the case of the defendants. Furthermore, it has come on record that when Bhag Singh-plaintiff appeared in evidence, learned counsel representing the defendants, during his cross-examination, suggested that Smt. Rampati had filed a previous suit which was dismissed. Sh. Bhag Singh explained that the aforesaid suit is not with respect to the suit land. The defendants did not produce any evidence to prove that a previous suit filed by Smt. Rampati with respect to suit property was dismissed.

Learned counsel representing the appellants while relying upon the judgment passed by a full Bench in AIR 1977 PH 341 (Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs Harpal Singh And Ors.), contends that in such a situation Section 14(2) of the 1956 Act shall be applicable. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the respondents contends that from th