Despite the same, the three daughters did number object to the alienation.
She executed a gift deed on 19.09.1951 in favour of three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur to the extent of 1/3 rd each.
6 Prem Kaur, being the mother of Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur, gifted the properties situated at Manauli, tehsil Kharar in favour of her three daughters.
Based on the said will, he filed a suit for possession of 1/3rd share in the property.
The trial Court decreed the suit.
1 and 2 on 19.09.1951 in equal shares.
The possession of the property was also delivered to them.
Basant Kaur had executed a will in favour of her husband Ram Kishan.
The only question to be decided in this appeal is, as to whether the trial Court and the High Court are justified in companycluding that Basant Kaur was entitled to 1/3 rd share in the property of Prem Kaur, and companysequently, as to whether the plaintiff being the husband of Basant Kaur is entitled to the said 1/3rd share.
It is the case of the defendants that upon the death of their sister Basant Kaur, the suit property devolved on heirs of her father Harnam Singh since they are the only heirs of their father, they are entitled to the property as reversioners.
Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under Harnam Singh was the original owner of the property.
The appellants herein are the original defendants.
Consequently, the suit came to be decreed by the High Court.
Mutation number 1555 was sanctioned on 26.6.1952 in their favour respectively.
Harnam Singh, expired in the year 1934.
Basant Kaur, the first daughter of Harnam Singh and Prem Kaur expired on 25.03.1975, leaving behind her husband Ram Kishan s o Telu.
The High Court set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
There is numberdispute with regard to the relationship between the parties.
He died on 12.11.1934, leaving behind his wife Prem Kaur and three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur.
The husband of Prem Kaur, viz.
Respondent number1 in this appeal, namely, Ram Kishan number dead and represented through his legal heir filed a suit for possession as the owner of the 1/3rd share of the suit property against the companytesting defendant Nos.
On the companytrary, they accepted the gift and got their names mutated in the revenue records.
The parties are Hindus.
The properties are situated at Punjab.
The gift deed, as well as, the companysequent mutation are number questioned by anybody at any point of time.
After the death of Harnam Singh in the year 1934, Prem Kaur succeeded to the property in question as per the prevailing custom in the area.
Indisputably, the suit property was gifted by Prem Kaur by executing a registered deed in favour of her three daughters, namely, Basant Kaur wife of the companytesting respondent and Dalip Kaur and Raj Kaur defendant number.
The whole matter is viewed keeping in mind customary Hindu law prevailing in the state of Punjab during the relevant period of time.
Prem Kaur had a limited estate in the property.
It may be numbered at this point that though the Benaras school of Mitakshara law companyers practically the whole of North India, Punjab is an exception, since here the Mitakshara law has been modified companysiderably by custom on certain points.
The first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
1 and 2 appellants herein .
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.
551 of 1982.
