Any other relief this Ld.
In terms of a judgment and decree dated 31.1.1958, the said suit was decreed.
However, at the same time it was observed by the Ld.
Court deeds fit may kindly be granted to the plaintiff in the interest of justice.
A plea that the suit is time barred was also raised as an additional plea.
While filing the aforementioned suit on 7.7.1994, the Respondents raised a plea that as she was number heard for a period of seven years prior thereto, by them and by others who would have heard from her had she been alive, she was presumed to have been died .
One Harnama son of Jatti and Nathu son of Chetu as reversioners of said Shadi filed a suit being Suit No.204 of 1957 challenging the legality of the said deed of gift, companytending that said Indira Devi had a limited life interest therein.
No.285/356, Khasra Nos.
The learned Trial Judge in view of the pleadings of the parties, inter alia, framed the following issues What is the effect of the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1958 ?
194 8 4 , 195 5 7 , 2124 6 18 , 1854 1 2 , 1859 4 7 , 1856 4 7 , 851 4 3 , 850/2 0 8 , 1621 0 15 , and for symbolical possession as owner of the land companyprised in kh kh No.285/337, Khasra Nos.849 1 10 , 850 3 7 , situated within the revenue limits of village Mullanpur Garib Dass and of 1/6 share of kh.
The plaintiffs Respondents, as regard the earlier suit, averred One Harnama son of Jatti and one Nathu son of Chetu challenged the gift deed mentioned above in the year 1957 through a suit No.204 and sought declaration to the effect that the gift deed in dispute shall number effect their reversionary rights after the death of Inder Devi and their suit was decreed on 31.1.58 by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Ambala.
One Shadi admittedly was the owner of the suit property.
On or about 7.1.1955, by a deed of gift Indira Devi donated the suit property in favour of the Appellant herein.
Apart from it under the customary law of Punjab Smt.
He left behind his widow, Indira Devi, who inherited the same.
Her date of death is number known.
The said Indira Devi is stated to have died subsequently.
Inder Devi who had been absolute owner of the suit properties and she made a valid gift in favour of the answering defendant.
No.2078 3 7 and of 1/6 share out of Bara bounded as.and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit properties to anybody may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants with companyts.
Inder Devi was number absolute owner on 7.,1.1955 i.e. the day of gift of the suit properties, rather on the other hand she was only having life interest in the suit properties and companyld number gift away the same to defendant No.1 as Smt.
Inder Devi had already parted with the suit properties in favour of defendant No.1 and companyld number become absolute owner with the pasasing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, rather her life interest companytinued through in the hand of defendant No.1.
The Appellant First Respondent companytended that she died at Haridwar in the year 1961.
In the said suit, the plaintiff respondents prayed It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs for possession as owner of the land companyprised in Kh kh.
Sub Judge, that declaratory decree will ensue for the benefit of daughters of Shadi deceased.
The statements made in paragraph 1 was traversed by the Appellant herein in paragraph 3 of the written statement, companytending It is incorrect and denied.
The plaintiff respondents filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction, being Suit No.218 of 1994.
B. SINHA, J The first defendant in the suit is in appeal before us.
