Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit praying for a decree for declaration and injunction against the defendants inter alia on the grounds that land comprised in Khewat No. 25, Khatauni No. 39, Khasra No. 371/347, measuring 1-5-17 bighas, situated in Mohal Barkawali No. H.B. 484, Teshil Thunag, District Mandi i.e. suit land, was previously owned and possessed by late Shri Sangni, who was succeeded by Manglu and after the death of Manglu, the suit land devolved upon Dharu, the predecessor in interest of plaintiff, defendants No. 1 and 2 and proforma defendant No. 3 and was joint Hindu Family ancestral property in the hands of Dharu and Dharu was merely a custodian of the same and had no right to alienate the same. Dharu died on 22.09.2001 and after his death, parties inherited the suit property qua their respective shares.

3. By way of written statement filed by the contesting defendants, it was denied that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by late Sh. Sangni, from whom it was succeeded by Manglu and thereafter it devolved upon Dharu or was joint Hindu Family ancestral property in the hands of Dharu. As per defendants No. 1 and 2, suit land was self acquired property of Dharu and parties did not constitute joint Hindu Family nor the suit land was joint Hindu Family ancestral land. According to the defendants, deceased Dharu was fully empowered and competent to deal with the suit land. As per the defendants, Dharu had executed the Will in their favour and mutations regarding the inheritance of the same were rightly and validly attested on the basis of the said Will in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. It was denied that .

Learned trial Court also held that deposition of PW2 Karam Dass in his cross examination itself demonstrated that family of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 did not constitute .

a joint Hindu family. It further went on to hold that it was not evident from the records that suit land had devolved upon Dharu from three successive generations. Learned trial Court also held that there was nothing on record to show that testator Dharu, plaintiff, defendants No. 1 and 2, proforma defendant No. 3 and other defendants constituted a joint Hindu family or that suit land was the part of the said joint Hindu family property. On these bases, it was also held by the learned trial Court that suit land was not part of the joint Hindu family property as alleged and Will which stood executed by Dharu in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 was a legal and valid Will.

same are not sustainable in law. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

Substantial question of law No. (c):-

16. Learned trial Court has framed the specific issue No. (iii)-A as to whether property in issue was Joint Hindu Family ancestral property of the parties or not. On the basis of evidence on record, both ocular as well as documentary, it was held by learned trial court that the property was not ancestral as alleged and Dharu was not the manager of the same in his capacity as 'Karta' of joint Hindu family. Learned trial Court has returned specific finding to the effect that it was not been proved on record by plaintiff that suit land devolved upon Dharu from three successive generations.