VIDYA WANTI Vs. DURGA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1/5th share of one Amar Nath (deceased, measuring to an area of 73 kanals 1 marla, situate in the Revenue Estate of Nadala, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala is the subject-matter of dispute between the parties. On the one side is the plaintiff-respondent Durga Dass, the younger brother of Amar Nath, who claimed the latters share in the land on the basis of a will, dated August 20, 1987 said to have been executed in his favour. On the other side are the defen dant-appellants Vidya Wanti (widowed wife) and Santosh Kumari (daughter) of the deceased Amar Nath. They claimed the share in the land by devolution.

(2.) The land (in which the 1/5th share of Amar Nath is the subject-matter of dis pute) was taken in the name of Badri Dass, the father of Amar Nath and Durga Dass and two other brothers and a sister. As a matter of fact, Badri Dass had made an application for the purchase of land from the Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. He died sometime in the year 1958 before any action was taken on his application. Long after his death, the conveyance deed, dated March 6, 1965 for the land came in the name of the deceased-applicant and on March 19, 1965 the transfer of the land was registered in the name of Badri Dass. The mutation in the revenue records was of course made in the names of Amar Nath, Durga Dass and the two other sons and a daughter of Badri Dass, namely, Diwan Chand, Gurbux Lal and Sumtra Rani.

(3.) After the death of Amar Chand on March 26, 1988, a dispute arose between the parties over the mutation of his 1/5th share in the total land. Durga Dass claimed mutation of Amar Naths share in his favour on the basis of a will executed by him on August 20, 1987 in his favour. The wife and the daughter of Amar Nath contested his claim for mutation. They stated that Amar Nath had not executed any will in favour of his younger brother Durga Dass and asserted that the will, dated August 20, 1987 was fake and fictitious. In the mutation proceedings, the other two brothers Diwan Chand and Gurbux Lal apparently Supplorted the wife and the daughter of their deceased brother Amar Nath and filed affidavits stating that the Will relied upon by Durga Dass was a fictitious document. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bholath, rejected the claim of Durga Dass and directed that the name of the deceased Amar Nath be substituted in the revenue records by his widowed wife and daughter. Durga Dass took the revenue proceedings in appeal but, on being unsuccessful there, he finally filed a suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession in regard to the 1/5th share of Amar Nath in the total area of the land.