SAWARNI Vs. INDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 1253 of 1994 dismissing the second appeal in limine, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge in case No. 66 of 1986.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the disputed land. It was alleged in the plaint hat one Gurbax Singh was the admitted owner of the land in question and he died leaving behind his widow Gurdip Kaur and daughters Swarni, the plaintiff, and Roori alias Kirpal Kaur. Said Gurbax Singh purchased the land in question from one Dhara Singh under a registered sale deed dated 5th September, 1958. Widow Gurdip Kaur died on 14th April, 1968 and on her death plaintiff and Roori succeeded to the disputed land in question. Gurdip Kaur also had executed a will on 29th February, 1968 in favour of her two daughters the plaintiff and Roori. Plaintiff and Roori had obtained a succession certificate claiming to be the legal heirs of Gurdip Kaur from the Civil Court on 4th April, 1975. Said Roori was not heard of and did not claim any interest in the disputed property, but defendant Nos. 8 and 9 are the sons of said Roori and defendant No. 7 is her husband and, therefore, in the property of Gurbax Singh, plaintiff as well defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are the successors in interest and are entitled to share half and half. It was also alleged that defendant Nos. 5 and 6 without having any interest in the property forcibly occupied a portion of the disputed property taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff from the suit villate and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief as already stated. It was also averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No. 5- Inder Kaur and said defendant No. 5 claiming herself to be one of the daughters of Gurbax Singh had executed the sale deed in question. Plaintiff contended that defendant No. 5 is the daughter of Harnam Singh brother of Gurbax Singh and not daughter of Gurbax Singh as alleged and, therefore she had no title to the property to pass on in favour of defendant No. 1 under the registered sale deed in question.