ARJUN SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pltf. Arjan Singh alias Puran, brought a suit in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, against Inder Singh, Kartar Singh and five others, for a declaration that a will executed by deft. 1, Inder Singh, in favour of deft. 2, Kartar Singh, about 14 years ago was null and void as against the pltf., who was deft, 1's reversionary heir after his death. The plaint comprised a half share of land measuring 395 kanals in the village of Kadduwal, another half share of land measuring 837 kanals and 11 marlas in the village of Pattar Kalan, and four houses in the latter village. In the pedigree attached to the plaint showing the relationship of the parties, the pltf, claims Sehja Singh as his 4th ancestor. Jodha Singh and Jai Singh are shown as Sehja Singh's sons. Defendant 1, Inder Singh, is Jodha Singh's grandson. It is alleged that the parties are Jat agriculturists governed by the customary law in matters of alienation of ancestral property and succession and that as a sonless proprietor under this law is not competent to make a will in respect of his ancestral property, when there are collaterals up to the 5th degree, and as the entire property mentioned in the plaint was ancestral, the will made by deft. 1 in favour of deft. 2 who claimed to have been adopted by deft, was invalid and ineffectual. Plaintiff was born on 22-7-1919, and was a minor when the will was made, and so the suit was within time.

(2.) The suit was contested mainly by deft. 2, Kartar Singh, who set up his adoption and pleaded that the properties were not at all ancestral as regards the pltf. Defendants 3 to 7 remained exparte.

(3.) At the trial, it was admitted that the land situated in Kadduwal was not proved to be ancestral. The Subordinate Judge held that even the land in Pattar Kalan was not shown to be ancestral by the evidence adduced on the side of plts., as it was found that the common ancestor, Sehja Singh, had not only two sons called Jodha Singh and Jai Singh, but a third son named Pohlo, and that from the mere fact that the two sons enjoyed the land in equal shares, no presumption could arise that the property was ancestral and descended by inheritance from the common ancestor, when nothing was known about the share of the third son. He recorded findings in favour of the pltf. on the issues as to adoption and limitation, but be also held that the pltf, had no locus standi to contest the validity of the adoption as the period of limitation had expired long before be was born. In the result, the suit was dismissed.