The court affirmed that Kareva marriage customs are valid and the testimonies provided sufficiently proved the marriage, impacting the inheritance rights of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

The defendants are in appeal. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that Chokh Ram and Bhagmal were owners to the extent of 1/5th share each in the suit land measuring 46 kanals as detailed out in the plaint. Udai Singh died on 15.11.1966 leaving behind Chand Kaur widow, sons Satpal, daughters Maya and Lali. All of them were recorded as co-owners of 1/5th share of Udai Singh. Chokh Ram was younger brother of Udai Singh. He died unmarried and issueless on 10.12.1976. Plaintiff Mehar Chand is entitled to the estate of Chokh Ram and Bhagmal. Mutation with respect to succession of Chokh Ram was wrongly sanctioned on 20.10.1986 in the name of Chand Kaur showing her to be widow of Chokh Ram. Mutation is illegal, void and is not binding on the plaintiff. Chokh Ram never married Chand Kaur and thus, there is no question of her being widow of Chokh Ram. Defendant No.2 through civil court decree dated 17.11.1986 passed in Civil Suit No.449 of 1986 titled Satpal v. Chand Kaur got the said land recorded in his name through Chand Kaur. Said decree is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff as Chand Kaur had no right, title or interest in the property.

2. Defendants No.3 to 5 were proceeded ex parte. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement controverting the allegations in the plaint. As per defendants No.1 and 2, Chand Kaur was earlier married to Udai Singh. On the death of Udai Singh, she married Chokh Ram. They had no issue. Estate of Chokh Ram was succeeded by Chand Kaur being his widow. Parties are Ahirs by caste and are governed by Rewaje Aam of District Gurgaon. Kareva marriage is permissible among Ajhirs. It was claimed that Udai Singh died in the year 1965-66 at the age of 45 years. Right of the plaintiff was denied. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are neither entitled to succeed to the estate of Chokh Ram nor to the estate of Bhagmal. Parbati having died after Bhagmal, mutation of succession has been rightly sanctioned in her favour.

3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of first instance on following issues : -

“1. Whether the plaintiff alone is entitled to inherit the suit land left by Chokh Ram and Bhagmal deceased? OPP

2. Whether the mutation of inheritance of Chokh Ram and Bhagmal have been wrongly sanctioned in favour of Chand Kaur and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 respectively as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the decree dated 17.11.1986 suffered by Chand Kaur in favour of defendant no.2 is void and not binding upon the interest of the plaintiff? OPP

4. Whether Smt. Chand Kaur defendant No.1 is still alive and her mutation No.606 has been wrongly sanctioned on 11.4.87 as alleged. If so to what effect? OPP

5. Whether Smt. Chand Kaur contracted a Kareva marriage with Chokh Ram as alleged. If so to what effect? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land? OPP.

7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD

9. Whether the suit is out of limitation? OPD

10. Relief.”

4. While deciding issue No.1, the Court of first instance held that as per custom prevalent among Ahirs, Chokh Ram gifted bangles to Chand Kaur. They performed Kareva marriage. The said fact has been admitted by PW2-Bijay Singh. As per death certificate Ex.P2, Chokh Ram died in the year 1976. As per Ex.P1, Udai Singh died in the year 1966. Kareva