The central legal point established in the judgment is the devolution of ancestral property and inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Maiya and Lehna Singh both sons of Sukhi Ram, residents of village Silakheri, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind had brought a suit against defendants Balbir son and Smt.Pataso, Kishni and Bhano - daughters of Sukhi Ram, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in joint possession in equal shares of 12/35 share each of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.57, Khata No.69 measuring 86 kanals 14 marlas and khewat No.58 khata No.70, measuring 4 kanals 0 marla total 90 kanals 14 marlas situated in revenue estate of village Silakheri, Tehsil Safidon and that they would be entitled to 12/35 share each on partition of above land. As a consequential relief, the plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from joint possession of their respective shares.

2. As per the case of the plaintiffs, one Sukhi Ram son of Data Ram was original owner of the suit land; it happened to be his ancestral property since he had inherited the same from his grandfather; Sukhi Ram had two wives, namely, Smt.Chalti and Smt.Bholi; the plaintiffs Maiya and Lehna are his sons from the womb of Smt.Bholi, whereas defendants are son and daughters from the womb of Smt.Chalti; Smt.Chalti had died in the year 1973, whereas Sukhi Ram had expired in the year 1976; Smt.Bholi left this mortal world in the year 1980; the parties are Jat agriculturists and were governed by agricultural custom of Punjab; however, on passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parties are now deemed to be from a joint Hindu family and are governed by Hindu Law in the matters of alienation and succession; during life time of Sukhi Ram, the suit land was joint family property, which had not been partitioned and was recorded in the name of Sukhi Ram alone in the revenue record; Sukhi Ram was Karta of the family; immediately before Sukhi Ram died in the year 1976, there were four coparceners in the joint family constituted by Sukhi Ram, three sons i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.1; Smt.Bholi mother of the plaintiffs was also there, whereas Smt.Chalti had already expired in the year 1973 and by way of notional partition, the plaintiffs would have got 1/5 share each, defendant No.1 also got 1/5 share so would have Sukhi Ram and Smt.Bholi; the share of Sukhi Ram after his death would devolve upon of his seven legal heirs, therefore the share of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 came out to 8/35 each that of Smt.Bholi 8/25 share, Smt.Pataso 1/35 share, Kishni 1/35 share and Bhano 1/35 share and entries in the revenue record showing all the seven persons as owners in equal shares i.e. 1/7th share each are factually wrong; Smt.Bholi had died in the year 1980 and plaintiffs inherited her share under Hindu Succession Act, in that way, the share of the plaintiffs came out to 12/35, that of defendant No.1 8/35, defendants No.2 to 4 1/35 share each in the suit land.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they called upon the defendants several times to admit their claim but in vain, as such they had approached the Court by way of filing the suit in Civil Court at Safidon.

4. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections to wit, the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable; no cause of action arose to the plaintiffs to bring the suit; the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit; the suit had been filed with mala fide intention etc. On merits, the defendants admitted their relationship inter se as well as with Sukhi Ram, however, they denied that the suit land has nature of ancestral coparcenary property rather the defendants claimed that it was self acquired property in the hands of Sukhi Ram. The defendants further claimed that the parties are governed by agricultural custom and not by Hindu law; after death of Sukhi Ram, the land was rightly mutated in the name of all his legal heirs