@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G.R. Majithia, J.@mdashThis Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal
those of the trial Judge.
2. Facts first:
Fateh Singh was the common ancestor. He had three sons Partap Singh Tara Singh and Dalip Singh. Partap Singh died leaving behind his son
Hardial Singh. Dalip Singh died leaving behind Chater Kaur, his widow and two daughters, namely, Harcaharan Kuar alias Charanjit Kaur and
Balbir Kaur. Dalip Singh had executed a will on Oct. 16, 1937 alienating a part of his property in favour of his daughters. On Nov. 26, 1945,
Dalip Singh executed another will in favour of his wife regarding the disputed property. In 1953. Hardial Singh son of Partap Singh filed a suit for
declaration that Dalip Singh could not alienate the property under wills, dated Oct. 16, 1937 and Nov. 26, 1945. The trial Court decreed the suit
on May 10, 1954. The legatees, namely, Chatar Kuar, Harcharan Kaur alias Charanjit Kuar and Balbir Kaur challenged the judgment and decree
in appeal. At the appellate stage, the parties to the its arrived at a compromise. The terms of the compromise read thus :--
It is agreed that the property in dispute is Cis Sutlej Jagir and as such, Dalip Singh deceased had no right to make a will, nor the widow, Sardarni
Chater Kaur, has a right to inherit the property as such. However, as a matter, of grace w.e.f. Kharif 1954, the amount- of maintenance, which
was being paid to Sardarni Chatar Kaur at the rate of Rs. 150/- per annum, is increased to Rs 28/-per annum, i.e., in other words, after Kharif,
1954. half yearly payment will be made of Rs. 140/- and thereafter, similar payment will be made every half year. In addition Sardar Hardial Singh
has agreed that Mst. Chatar Kaur may keep the share of land of Dalip Singh in Dhiro Majra by way of maintenance for her life time. She will not
be entitled to mortgage or burden the land whatever, but otherwise, she will be entitled to enjoy it in any manner either by giving it or chakota or on
batai.
3. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise. On July 13, 1976, Chatar Kaur executed a will bequeathing the IInd to her daughter,
Smt. Charanjit Kuar given to her under the compromise. ''Hardial Singh filed a suit for possession of 1 /2 share and for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants respondents from alienating the property in any manner or Cutting or removing the trees standing thereon. He asserted
that the property was a part of Cis-Sutlej Jagir. It was held by his grand-father, Shri Fateh Singh, that the male holder had only life estate in the
property and they could not alienate the same or any part thereof. After the death of the male holder, it was to pass on next male holder. The
female heir has only a right of maintenance. Chatar Kaur, mother of the defendant/respondent (hereinafter, the defendant) was given the property
for life in lieu of maintenance under the civil court decree and she has no right to alienate the same in any manner. The will executed by Smt. Chatar
Kaur in favour of the defendant was invalid.
4. The suit was contested by the defendant. She pleaded that the suit land was given to Chatar Kaur in lieu of maintenance and she became full
owner on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the Act). Chatar Kaur executed a valid will in favour of the defendant
on July 13, 1976.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :--
1. Whether the property in dispute was a Cis Sutlej Jagir and could not be transferred by any body? OPP (Objected to)
2. Whether the plaintiff became the owner of 1 / 2 share of the land in dispute on the basis of judgment dated 10-5-1965 of the learned Sub Judge
1st Class, Ludhiiana? OPP.
3. Whether defendant No. 1 was a limited owner on the basis of compromise, dated 15- 11-1954? OPP.
4. Whether Mst. Chatar Kuar had executed a registered valid will dated 30-7-1976 in favour of defendant No. I bequeathing her entire property?
OPD
5. Whether the defendant has become owner of the land in dispute by way of adverse possession? OPD
5-A. Whether Mst. Chatar Kuar became full owner of the land in dispute on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act? OPD
6. Relief.
6. The trial Judge answered issued No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, issue Nos. 2 to 5 and 5A were dealt with together and it was held that the
plaintiff was not owner of the property in dispute and that Chatar Kaur acquired a limited ownership on the basis of compromise deed, Exhibit P-
5, She became absolute owner of the disputed property on the promulgation of the Act. She could validly will away the same to the defendant, her
daughter, and the will, Exhibit D-2, was validly executed. On ultimate analysis, the suit was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved against the judgment and deree of the trial Court, the plaintiff assailed the same in first appeal. The only question raised before the
first appellate Court was whether Smt. Chatar Kaur became absolute owner of the property in dispute in view of the provisions of Section 14(1)
of the Act. The first appellate Court answered the question in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff holding that Chatar Kuar became full
owner of the property in view of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and the appeal was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved against this judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff came up in Regular Second Appeal. The appeal came up for
hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on May 4, 1993.
9. Before the learned single Judge, it was pointed out that an identical question came up for adjudication in Regular Second Appeal No. 553 of
1976 where a female was given a part of the property of Cis Sutlej Jagir in lieu of maintenance and this Court held that she had become full owner
u/s 14(1) of the Act. The learned single Judge had reservations regarding the view taken in that judgment. He accordingly directed that the papers
be laid before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for referring the case to a larger Bench. It is now this case has been placed before us for disposal.
10, In Regular Second Appeal No. 553 of 1976, title as Hardial Singh v. Smt. Charanjit Kaur alias Harcharan Kaur (Exhibit D-15), the dispute
arose as under:
Tara Singh son of Fateh Singh held Cis Sutlej Jagir jointly with his brothers Partap Singh and Jair Singh. On the death of Tara Singh, his estate was
mutated in favour of his brothers Dalip Singh and Hardial Singh Plaintiff (son of predeceased brother Partap Singh). Tara Singh had left a widow,
Amar Kaur. Under the written compromise, Amar Kaur was given a share in the land situated in village Dhiro Majra and right of residence in the
residential house at Dhiro Majra besides maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. On February 18, 1964, Amar Kaur
bequeathed the property given to her by way of maintenance to the defendant. The plaintiff challenged the will on the ground that Amar Kaur had
only a limited estate and the will executed in favour of the defendant was invalid. The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia on the ground
that Smt. Amar Kaur, testator, had become absolute owner of the property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act and she could validly will away
the same. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held that Smt. Amar Kaur had become full owner of the property by virtue of Section
14(1) of the Act and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the same in second appeal in this Court and the same was
dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court observed thus:
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that f he matter is fully covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court in Vadde-boyina Tulsamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddy (dead) by L. Rs. AIR 1977 SC 1944. Shrimati Amar Kaur was
granted property out of the estate left by her husband by way of maintenance in 1920. She remained alive when the Act came into force, with the
result that u/s 14(1) of the Act, she became full owner thereof, which otherwise had to be considered as life interest. Hence, there is no merit in this
appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
11. The judgment rendered in Regular Second Appeal No. 553 of 1976 attained finality. The judgment rendered in the said appeal is relevant u/s
13 of the Evidence Act. It is proof of a transaction where the property given to a female for maintenance was apart of Cis Sutlej Jagir and on the
commencement of the Act, she claimed that she had become absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act and this Court had so held it.
The judgment rendered in Regular Second Appeal No. 553 of 1976 will be a proof of a transaction by which the right was asserted, denied and
ultimately recognised. The Section applies to all kinds of rights, whether rights of full ownership or falling short of ownership. The term ''right''
comprehends every right known to the law. It includes both corporeal and incorporeal rights including ''a right of ownership''. The decision
rendered in Rgular Second Appeal No. 553 of 1976 is admissible in evidence u/s 13(a) of Act. The party aggrieved could either challenge it in
appeal or avoid it in any manner prescribed u/s 44 of the Evidence Act. Its correctness cannot be assailed in these proceedings. This aspect of the
matter was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there are judicial precedents in which it was held that Cis Sutiej Jagir would devolve on a
male heir and is inalienable. In those decisions, the question arising for adjudication in these proceedings did not airse and this would not help the
learned counsel. We do not think it necessary to del with the documents as in the instant case, the disputed question was resolved in Regular
Second Appeal No. 553 of 1976, which judgment has attained finality.
13. The defendant brought on record certified copy of the sale deed, exhibited as C-1 on moving an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the
CPC and the same has been disposed of by an order of even date. The plaintiff sold a part of the property of Cis Sutlej Jagir as an absolute
owner. The learned counsel wanted to highlight that the Cis Sutlej Jagir property has always been treated as personal property by the male
holders. We need not to deal this queslion in these proceedings as it is not necessary for resolving the question in dispute.
14. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
15. Appeal dismissed.
