On the death of Kirpa Ram, his widow Bishan Devi became the owner of the properties and was in possession of the properties for her lifetime.
Before the learned Single Judge the appellant raised two companytentions 1 That the plaintiff never set up any claim as a preferential heir under the Act being the sisters on of the last male holder and, as such.
his title should number have been recognised by the Subordinate Courts and 2 In any event, the Act does number apply inasmuch as the last male holder Charanji Lal died as early as August 22.
The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated February 22, 1956 decreed the plaintiffs claim.
42 of 1959 before a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court.
359 of 1957.
Charanji Lal died long afterwards, in or about 1926 and, after his death, his mother Bishan Devi became heir to the property left by Charanji Lal, for her lifetime.
After her death on November 26, 1946 Maya Devi was in possession of the property, again as a life estate holder, till her death on March 25, 1950 Though numberclaim was made by the plaintiff to succeed to Charanji Lal as his sisters son, and though his claim was to succeed to the property of Kirpa Ram as the latters daughters son, the Trial Court held that on the findings that Charanji Lal was the last male holder, the claim of the plaintiff had really to be decided on the basis of the Act under which the plaintiff, as the sisters son of Charanji Lal, has got a preferential claim.
After Maya Devis death, according to Dharma Shastras the plaintiff, as the daughters son of Kirpa Ram, was entitled to succeed to the properties which were in the possession of Bishan Devi and later on of Maya Devi, his mother.
The defendant carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, in C.A.53 of 1956.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 30, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The learned Judge, in the judgment dated March 14, 1957, has stated that the defendant only attacked the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was the daughters son of Kirpa Ram and the findings on the other issues were number challenged The learned Judge, on this point, agreed with the finding of the trial Court that Maya Devi was the daughter of Kirpa Ram and Bishan Devi and that the plaintiff was the son of Maya Devi.
364 of 1967.
The decree of the trial Court was companyfirmed.
It found that Maya Devi was the daughter of Kirpa Ram ands Bishan Devi and that the plaintiff was the son of Maya Devi.
The Trial Court further ,found that Charanji Lal did number pre decease his father Kirpa Ram but, on the other hand, after the death of Kirpa Ram, Charanji Lal was the last male holder of the entire property and was in possession, as such, till his death.
In fact the defendant even disputed the fact that Maya Devi was the daughter of Bishan Devi.
The defendant companytested the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds.
He further averred that Maya Devi did number at all companye into possession of the estate after the death of Bishan Devi.
It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant.
42 of 1959.
On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for a declaration regarding, his title to the property and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant.
It was also further found that the parties were governed by their personal law and number by custom in matters of succession.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The short question that arises for companysideration in this appeal, filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, on certificate, is whether on a. true companystruction of the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act, 1929 Act 11 of 1929 hereinafter referred to as the Act , it applies only to the case of a Hindu male dying intestate on or after February 21, 1929 when the Act came into force or ether it applies in the case of a Hindu male dying intestate before the Act came into operation and succeeded by a female heir who died after that date.
The companytention of the defendant that the Act did number apply inasmuch as Charanji Lal had died long before the date when the Act came into force February 21, 1929 , was number accepted and the Court took the view that succession opened in favour of the plaintiff only after the death of Maya devi in 1950 in this view the trial ale Court held that the plaintiff, being the sisters son of the last in holder Charanji Lal was to be preferred to the defendant who was only a paternal uncle of Charanji Lal and as such, decreed the suit.
The defendant again challenged the decrees of both the Subordinate Courts before the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
He alleged that Charanji Lal did number pre decease Kirpa Ram but, on the other hand, after the death of Kiripa Ram, 9 5 6 Charanji Lal, his son, became heir and was in possession of the properties left by his father.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Even if Maya Devi was the daughter of Bishan Devi, the defendant alleged that according to the custom governing the parties, Maya Devi had numberright to the properties left by Bishan Devi.
After the death of Bishan Devi, her daughter Maya Devi daughter of Kirpa Ram and Bishan Devi became her heir and remained in possession of the property till her death.
it has been found that Charanji Lal died issueless on August 22, 1925 arid, after his death, his mother Bishan Devi was in possession of the property as a life estate holder.
Even during his life time his only son Charanji Lal had died.
On these allegations, the defendant maintained that he was rightly entitled to the properties of Kirpa Ram and that the plaintiff has numbercause of action for having the mutation effected in the Revenue Registers in his favour cancelled.
Bishan Narain, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.
after the death of Bishan Devi, claiming to be entitled to the properties of Kirpa Ram, got mutation in the Revenue Registers effected in his name on or about January 6, 1947.
1925, long before the companying into force of the Act on February 21, 1929.
After the death of Bishan Devi, the defendant claimed that he, as a companylateral of Kirpa Ram, became entitled to the properties of the latter and, as such, got mutation effected in his favour, according to law.
The following pedigree will be useful in appreciating the relationship of the parties as well as the basis of the claim made regarding the title to the properties by the parties.
According to the plaintiff Kirpa Ram was the last owner of.
the properties.
Dayala Mohri Tota Dasondhi Thakur Dass Kirpa Ram Bishan Devi Bishnan Bisban Singh Defendant Charanji Lal Maya Devi Nand Lal Charan Dass Plaintiff The respondent plaintiff instituted Suit No.
Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had numberright title or interest to the properties of Kirpa Ram and the mutation obtained by him companyld number affect the rights of the plaintiff as the daughters son of Kirpa Ram.
41 of 1955 in the Subordinate Judges Court, Jagraon, against the original defendant for recovery of possession of the suit properties.
S. Vohra and Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
