Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 372 (PNJ)

Hira Devi v. Jagan Nath

2008-02-08

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2008
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. The appellant who was defendant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1979 passed by the District Judge, Patiala, whereby he has upheld the judgment and decree dated 28.12.1977 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Rajpura decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. 2. The plaintiff-respondents have filed the suit for declaration alleging in the plaint that Goverdhan Dass plaintiff, Ram Sarup and Sat Pal defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Jagan Nath respondent No. 1 and the said Jagan Nath is related with Raja Ram, son of Tilak Ram as collateral by fourth degree. It is further the case of the respondent that Raja Ram did not leave behind any other legal heir except the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) who are his nearest heirs. The plaintiffs further alleged that Manbhari mother of appellant/defendant No. 1 had no concern whatsoever with Raja Ram or the plaintiff. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that Raja Ram who was the sole owner of the suit land had executed a will dated 14.8.1958 in favour of Goverdhan Dass plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent No. 3 and 4) during his life time. The said Raja Ram died on 24.9.1958 without leaving behind any issue and widow. After the death of Raja Ram, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 came into possession of the suit land as owners being legal heirs of deceased Raja Ram and since then they are in possession of the suit land as such. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that Manbhari, deceased mother of defendant-respondent No. 1 claiming herself to be the nearest heir of Raja Ram deceased in collusion with the revenue officials got the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her favour from Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 11.6.1959 and against the said order, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 preferred an appeal and the case was remanded and thereafter, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of respondents on 28.9.1964. 2 to 4 preferred an appeal and the case was remanded and thereafter, mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of respondents on 28.9.1964. However, Manbhari preferred an appeal before the Collector and the matter was again remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajpura vide order dated 2.2.1968 and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rajpura sanctioned mutation in favour of Manbhari of the inheritance of Raja Ram on 11.3.1970 and on account of the same, Manbhari is threatening to interfere in their possession of the suit land. The said order of mutation by the revenue official in favour of Manbhari is illegal and not binding upon them. It is also claimed by the respondent that Manbhari could not claim to be the widow of any son of Raja Ram. Alternatively, it was stated that in case Manbhari is proved to be widow of sister/s son of Raja Ram deceased, even then Jagan Nath respondent No. 1 being the nearest collateral of Raja Ram deceased is a preferential heir qua Manbhari and as such Manbhari has no right whatsoever to claim inheritance of the property of deceased Raja Ram. Since Manbhari has died during the pendency of suit, therefore, her daughter Hira Devi was impleaded in the case as defendant. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 refused to admit the claim of the appellant on 20.3.1970, hence they have a cause of action to file the suit. 3. Respondent No. 1 appeared in the suit and contested the same. In the written statement, respondent No. 1 alleged that plaintiffs or defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (respondents No. 1 to 4) are not related to Raja Ram deceased as alleged and as a matter of fact, she is the next heir of Raja Ram and is therefore, entitled to inherit the land of Raja Ram deceased. She further alleged that Raja Ram deceased never made any will in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Raja Ram was very old person, he was illiterate and his mind was weak. He remained seriously ill for about 4 years before his death and as such, he was not in sound disposing mind when the alleged will in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was executed. She further alleged that Raja Ram deceased had two sisters, namely, Bhani and Mansi alias Ganeshi. Ram Partap was sisters son of the deceased Raja Ram. 3 and 4 was executed. She further alleged that Raja Ram deceased had two sisters, namely, Bhani and Mansi alias Ganeshi. Ram Partap was sisters son of the deceased Raja Ram. The name of the mother of Ram Partap was Bhani alias Bhagwani. Manbhari is the widow of Ram Partap and she being cognate of Raja Ram deceased is the owner of the property left by him. It was also stated by her that it is incorrect that Raja Ram died on 24.9.1958 and as a matter of fact, the date of death of Raja Ram is 16.8.1958. The suit was contested by respondent No. 1 on various other legal grounds also. The following issues were framed by the trial Court as under: 1) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 and 3 are the nearest and sole heirs of Raja Ram deceased? OPP 2) Whether Raja Ram deceased made a valid will in favour of Goverdhan Dass plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3? 3) Whether the defendant No. 1 is related to Raja Ram deceased as alleged in Para No. 2 of the written statement? OPD 4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5) Whether the suit is not within time? OPD 6) Relief. 4. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence under issue No. 1 held that it stands conclusively proved on record that Jagan Nath, respondent-plaintiff is a collateral of Raja Ram deceased by fourth degree and therefore, he becomes agnate of Raja Ram deceased. Under issue No. 2, it was held that Raja Ram deceased did not make a valid will in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as propounded by them. Under issue No. 3, it was held that defendant No. 1 is a daughter of Manbhari deceased who was the widow of Ram Partap sisters son of Raja Ram deceased and, therefore, she was the cognate of deceased Raja Ram. 5. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were decided against the defendant-respondents. In view of the findings on issue No. 1 and 3, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was decreed. 6. The appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.1979 and findings of the trial Court on all the issues were affirmed. Hence this appeal. 7. In view of the findings on issue No. 1 and 3, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was decreed. 6. The appeal filed by the defendant/appellant was dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.1979 and findings of the trial Court on all the issues were affirmed. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below are contrary to the law and facts proved on record of the case. It has been argued by him that the courts below should have held that the right to inherit the property devolved upon the defendant/appellant who is proved to be daughter of Manbhari who in turn was widow of the sisters son of Raja Ram deceased. Jagan Nath plaintiff, who is not a cognate of Raja Ram deceased has no right to inherit the property of Raja Ram deceased. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent has defended the judgments and decree of the courts below and has argued that it has been rightly held that Jagan Nath, plaintiff who is cognate of Raja Ram deceased has the right to inherit his property in preference to defendant/appellant who is agnate of Raja Ram deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 10. The contention raised by Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force. A categoric finding of fact has been recorded by the courts below regarding the relationship of the plaintiff Jagan Nath and defendant Hira Devi with Raja Ram deceased and it has been held by the learned courts below that he is agnate being the fourth degree collateral of Raja Ram, whereas the defendant/appellant No. 1 is a cognate of Raja Ram deceased being daughter of Smt. Manbhari widow of Ram Partap, sisters son of Raja Ram deceased. No material on record has been shown by the counsel for the appellant to challenge the said finding of fact. 11. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which is reproduced as under: 8. No material on record has been shown by the counsel for the appellant to challenge the said finding of fact. 11. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which is reproduced as under: 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) first, 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. 12. In the present case, as per Clause (c) of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, respondent-plaintiff Jagan Nath being agnate of deceased Raja Ram has a preferential right of inheritance against the appellant-defendant who is a cognate of the deceased. In view of the above said finding of fact and settled principles of law of inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same fails and is hereby ordered to be dismissed. No costs.