Sorans first wife was Pratapi who pre deceased him.
Thus, Smt.
He alleged that his mother was seeking to back out of the family settlement.
The Additional District Judge partly allowed the appeal modified the decree passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal on August 31, 1981 by holding that the findings recorded by the trial companyrt on issue number.
The appellant traversed the averments made by the first respondent and set up diverse pleas justifying the decree dated March 9, 1979.
Ram Kala was born out of that wedlock.
During the pendency of the second appeal the appellant as well as first respondent died and their legal representatives were brought on record.
The first respondent challenged the decree passed by the Additional District Judge III in the second appeal before the High Court.
Having companye to know of the decree passed in favour of the appellant, Ram Kala since deceased number represented by his legal heirs hereinafter referred to as the first respondent instituted a suit against appellant and Shingari praying therein that the decree dated March 9, 1979 be declared null and void and the appellant be restrained from interfering with the possession of the first respondent in respect of the said land.
He averred that on the basis of the family settlement, he was given possession of the land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and his mother agreed that she would get the revenue entries of the suit land companyrected in his favour but those entries have number been companyrected.
Shingari filed written statement on March 9, 1979 and admitted appellants claim in the suit.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed as many as nine issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit filed by the first respondent on August 31, 1981 and held that the decree dated March 9, 1979 was null and void and number binding on the first respondent.
The prayer was for a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land mentioned in para number 1 a b of the plaint in place of the defendant based on the family settlement entered into between him and his mother on January 1, 1978.
The first respondent set up the case that the property of Soran has devolved on his heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Shingari inherited 1/10th share in the property left by his father and she had numberright to alienate the suit land in favour of the appellant.
5 and 6 were wrong but maintained that the decree dated March 9, 1979 would number affect the rights of the first respondent.
The appellant, as numbered above, was Shingaris son born of her first marriage with Lachhman and he had numberclaim in the property left by Soran.
The claim made by the appellant against his mother was founded on the basis that his mother had acquired 1/5th share in the property after the death of Soran.
However, in view of my findings on Issue No.
Nanhi, the entire decree passed in Civil Suit No.
Prior to her marriage with Soran, Shingari was married to Lachhman and a son Man Singh was born from her first marriage.
Shingari defendant number 2 was less than 1/5th and that she having admitted the claim of Man Singh defendant number 1 to the extent of 1/5th share, the entire decree was liable to be set aside.
165/1979 on the ground that the share of Smt.
In the present case Smt.
Man Singh since deceased number represented by his wife hereinafter referred to as the appellant filed a suit against his mother Shingari on March 6, 1979 in the Court of Sub Judge, IInd Class, Kaithal.
As there was numbercontest from Shingari, the Sub Judge, IInd Class, Kaithal decreed appellants suit as prayed on that day itself.
As against the decree passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Kaithal, the appellant preferred civil first appeal which was heard by Additional District Judge III , Kurukshetra.
On the other hand, Ram Kala was entitled to one half 1/10th 1/100th share out of the total suit property.
The rest of one fifth share out of the one half share of Soran is to be divided between the two widows, namely, Nanhi and Shingari, thus, both Nanhi and Shingari were jointly entitled to one tenth share of the total suit property and each one of them was entitled to only one twentieth share, after the death of Nanhi, the property left behind by her was to be divided among the remaining legal heirs, i.e. Smt.
The learned Trial Court set aside the decree passed is Civil Suit No.
Shingari, Ram Kala, Chameli, Panmeswari and Buggari.
1 that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/5th share on the death of Soran and that he further inherited 1/50th on the death of Smt.
Soran, resident of Village Bandrana, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurushetra, Haryana died intestate leaving two wives Nanhi and Shingari, one son Ram Kala and three daughters Chameli, Panmehswari and Boghri him surviving.
M. LODHA, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the second appeal preferred by present respondents 1 i to vi was allowed and the judgment and decree dated December 21, 1981 passed by the Additional District Judge III , Kurukshetra was set aside and the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1981 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Kaithal was restored.
Shingari was entitled to only 1/20th Share 1/100th share out of the total suit property.
