Hans Raj and Others vs Mst. Bui and Others Mst. Bui and Others Vs Hans Raj and Others

Kapur, J.—This judgment will dispose of two second appeals, Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1146 of 1047 and 1223 of 1947. The former is by the defendants who are in possession but have been held to be trespassers and the latter is by the proprietors in the village.

The property in dispute is the estate of Dhani Ram deceased who was the last male holder and on his death it was inherited by his widow, Pesri. On the 5th of September 1931, Pesri gave birth to a daughter, who is alleged to be illegitimate and has been so held. On the 27th of May 1932. Rasila, father of one of the persons held to be a trespasser, made an application for the removal of the name of Pesri from the revenue records. This application was allowed on the 26th of July 1933.

On the 31st of July 1944, a sister of Dhani Ram, deceased, brought a suit for possession on the allegations that Pesri had remarried and her name had been removed from the revenue records and that the defendants, Hans Raj and others, had wrongly got their names entered in the revenue records and got into possession without having any rights in the property. Bui''s suit succeeded and the appeal against that decrse wag also dismissed. Two appeals have been brought in this Court, one by Hans Raj and others who are alleged to be trespassers and the other by Des Raj and others who are members of the co-proprietary body.

Mr. Shamair Chand has submitted, firstly, that sisters are no heirs and secondly, that the suit was barred by tame. With regard to the first point, sisters have got better right to possession than mere trespassers, and it has been held that they are better heirs than members of the proprietary body. As a matter of fact, in ''Sukhwant Kaur v. Balwant Singh'', F A No. 249 of 1946, the Hon''bte the Chief Justice and myself held that sisters had very much better rights even as against certain degree collaterals. A ''fortiori'' they have a better right than a mere trespasser or members of the proprietary body.

With regard to the question of limitation, Hans Raj and others were tenants of the widow and were co-sharers in the estate. It has not been proved that the co-sharers set up an adverse title to the property in dispute and if they did that at all that must be taken to be from the date when the name of Pesri was removed from the revenue records. In that case no case of adverse possession is made out.

These appeals are therefore dismissed but the parties will bear their own costs through out.