1996 (8) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court. 2. The land in suit is the anoestral land originally belonging to Gulab Singh who died leaving behind him his five sons. namely. Sampuran Singh, Jeet Singh, Dalip Singh, and Bakhtawar Singh, The defendant respondent herein was to Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh died in the year 1932 whereafter the respondent Sada Kaur contracted 'Karewa' marriage with Chand Singh the younger brother of her deceased husband Dalip Singh. 3. The plaintiffa appellants who are two sons of late Gulab Singh filed a declaratory suit on 19.1.1992 by contending that they were in possession as owners of 2/3 share in the estate of Dalip Singh, the late husband of defendant/ respondent No. 1 had forefeited her tight in the estate of her deceased husband on accou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ivil courts and the high Court holding that the respondent No. 1 had lost her rights in the estate of her deceased husband Dalip Singh when she contracted 'Karewa' merriage with her brother-in-law, Chand Singh. Thereafter on November 20, 1990 the plaintiffs appellants again filed a fresh shit Civil Suit No, 661 of 1994. The Sub-Judge took the view that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation and the defendant respondent No. 1 had perfected her title by adverse possession. The Additional District Judge, Faridkot by his judgment dated August 27, 1985 as well as the High Court by the impugned judgment dated September 4, 1986 upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal against which this appeal has b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the plaintifs/appellants failed to withdraw the suit was given on the ground that the suit was bound to fail by reason of some formal the defect or plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit n respect of the same subject matter, Not only this the plaintiffs had not even produced the application which is said to have been filed for withdrawal of the earlier suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action to show as what was the formal defect in the earlier suit by reason of which it was sought to be withdrawn. However the order dated May 20,1971 passed by the civil court was on record which did not indicate as to what was the formal defect in the suit by reason of which the permission to withdraw the same was accorded. In the....