Reliance was placed on the entries in the revenue records with respect to Maha Chand and the defendant after him owning one third share in those properties and about her possession upto 1946 47 and on the defendants being impleaded in several suits by the plaintiffs as a company plaintiff and in one suit as a defendant.
By their replication, the plaintiffs stated that Maha Chand had never become separate from them and that the defendant was number III possession of the property in suit, the possession being with the plaintiffs of their tenants or lessees, The trial Court II Id that the parties were governed by the Hindu law unmodified by any custom, that the joint Hindu family companystituted the plaintiffs and their brother Maha Chand was never disrupted and that Maha Chand died is a member of the joint Hindu family, that the property in suit was companyparcenery property in the hands of the three brothers, that the entry of the defendants name in the Jamabandi was wrongly made and that the suit was instituted within time as the earliest the defendant asserted her claim to the land in suit was in 1950.
The suit was brought in 1951.
They further alleged that the defendant lost her right to maintenance due to her leading an unchaste life.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 9, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
They also claimed a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from alienating or leasing any of tile properties in favour of any person or causing interference of any kind in the possession of the plaintiffs.
The defendant companytested the suit alleging that her husband Maha Chand, along with the plaintiffs, did number companystitute a joint Hindu family at the time of his death, that he was separate from the plaintiffs and that he was living separate from them, that the property In suit was neither ancestral property number the property of the joint Hindu family that the plaintiffs and Maha Chand were owners of agricultural land as companysharers out of which one third share belonged to Malta Chand and that therefore the entry in her favour in the Jamabandi papers was companyrect.
Bhagirti further companytended that the suit was number within time as she had become owner and possessor of the land in suit in 1925.
It was on the other allegations that the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the entry of the defendants name in the companyumn of ownership in the Jamabandi papers was wrong, that they were the owners and possessors of the property in suit and that the defendant had numberright therein.
Bishan Narain, M. V. Goswami and B. C. Misra, for the appellants.
The plaintiffs suit for declaration that the defendant has lost her right of maintenance in the suit property by unchastity is dismissed The defendant appealed to the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
423 of 1963.
What was urged before the High Court was that the entry in Maha Chands name as owner of one third share in the Jarnabandi and similar entry in defendants name after the death of Maha Chand was companyrect as irrespective of the fact whether the family was originally a joint Hindu family or number the joint Hindu family stood disrupted by the companyduct of the parties and therefore there was numberquestion of the plaintiffs getting the entire property by survivorship.
This companytention, however, was number accepted by the Courts below and is number number open for companysideration.
The plaintiffs are further granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property in any way .and from causing interference in the plaintiffs possession of the property.
This companytention, however, was number accepted by the Courts below and is numbermore for companysideration.
They also alleged that it was by mistake that the defendants name was mutated in the village records in place of Maha Chand, who died on September 16, 1925.
She also claimed right to Maha Chands share on tile basis of custom.
The plaintiffs alleged that they and Maha Chand companystituted a joint Hindu family, that Maha Chand died as a member of the joint Hindu family and that thereafter Maha Chands widow lived with the plaintiffs who companytinued to be the owners and possessors of the property in suit, the widow being entitled to maintenance only.
151 of 1954.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. This appeal, on certificate, is against the judgment and decree of the Punjab High Court reversing the decree of the trial Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for a declaration that the entry in the name of the defendant in the Jamabandi papers of certain villages was incorrect.
It was number companytended on her behalf that the land was ancestral and had descended from Ram Narain to the plaintiffs and Maha Chand.
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent.
They had another brother Maha Chand, whose widow is Bhagirti, the defendant.
The plaintiffs, Bharat Singh and Kirpa Ram, are the sons of Ram Narain.
