IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-150-1992 (O&M)

Reserved on: 24.02.2025 Pronounced on: 11.03.2025 SMT. BOHTI AND OTHERS . . . .APPELLANTS Vs.

SMT. RAM DHAKELI . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Suit for declaration with consequential relief of joint possession, regarding the property in dispute, filed by plaintiff Smt. Ram Dhakeli (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court of ld. Sub Judge, 1^st Class, Palwal, vide judgment dated 18.05.1990. Appeal filed by defendants Smt. Bohti etc. (appellants herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court of ld. Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment dated 04.10.1991. Against these concurrent findings, defendants of the case have approached this Court.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. Dispute pertains to the estate of Bidhu s/o Chhajju, resident of village Kalsara, who had expired in 1982. Admittedly, defendant No.1- Smt. Bohti is the widow of Bidhu, whereas defendants No.2 to 4 i.e. Beer Singh, Mahavir and Nirottam are the sons of Bidhu.

4. According to plaintiff-Smt. Ram Dhakeli, she is also the daughter of Bidhu, but born to him and Ram Piari, with whom he had performed karewa marriage after the death of her husband Chet Ram. As per plaintiff, Bidhu was Hindu Jat and owner of the suit land. He left behind properties in village Gelab and Kalsara. Earlier he was residing in Gelab, but for the last about 25 years, he had shifted to Kalsara. Plaintiff was born to him on 25.07.1937 in village Gelab, after karewa of Ram Piari & Bidhu performed about 55-56 years ago and that her (plaintiff) marriage was also performed by Bidhu about 30 years ago, when she was 20 years old. Plaintiff challenged mutations regarding suit property, sanctioned in favour of defendants, to be wrong & illegal and claimed that she is also entitled to succeed the estate of Bidhu to the extent of 1/5^th share and so, entitled to the declaration and joint possession, as claimed by her.

5. Defendants in their written statement challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff. They claimed that married daughter has no right in the dwelling house. They further claimed that Ram Piari was initially married to Chet Ram and had a son namely Raja Ram, and after the death of said Chet Ram, Ram Piari had entered into karewa with one Hukmi and from that wedlock, their daughter Nathiya was born. Defendants denied Ram Dhakeli (plaintiff) to be the daughter of Bidhu or that she was married off by Bidhu. They alleged the birth certificate relied by the plaintiff to be false and that plaintiff was daughter of Ram Piari, but not from Bidhu and rather, from Hukmi. Defendants further alleged that suit had been got filed by Raja Ram.

6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. After appreciating the evidence produced by parties, trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff Smt. Ram Dhakeli was the daughter of Bidhu and as such, she was entitled to inherit his estate to the extent of 1/5the share.

7. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed and the findings of the trial Court were upheld.

8. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below, it is contended by ld. counsel for the appellants-defendants that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right prospective and that the birth certificate (Ex.P1) relied by the plaintiff has been procured by her, showing her to be the daughter of Bidhu. In fact, she was daughter of Ram Piari born from the loins of Hukmi, with whom Ram Piari had performed Kareva marriage after the death of her previous husband Chet Ram. It is also contended that the witnesses examined by the plaintiff are interested and so, are not reliabl