GIAN KAUR Vs. JASWINDER KAUR @ INDERJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 5056-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 5057-C of 2010 The application is accepted and the delay of 85 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1680 of 2010 and C.M. No. 5058-C of 2010. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 20.7.2005 and 15.9.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala (referred to hereinafter as 'the first Appellate Court'). C.M.No.5058-C of 2010 has been moved for staying the operation of the impugned judgments during the pendency of the appeal. Plaintiff-respondent no.1, Jaswinder Kaur @ Inderjit Kaur, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction laying a claim to the estate of late Shri Santokh Singh. She pleaded that Santokh Singh was owner of the suit property and he expired on 22.6.2000; that he was survived by his sons, who were impleaded as defendant nos. 1 to 4, and daughters, who are plaintiff and defendant no.5; that after the death of Santokh Singh, the plaintiff and defendants had inherited the suit property to the extent of ⅙th share each as per the law of succession; that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit property beyond their shares; that defendant nos. 1 to 4 have started claiming that they were owners in possession of the entire suit property and have also threatened to alienate the same denying the title of the plaintiff to the extent of ⅙th share and hence, the suit.

(2.) Upon notice, all the defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. It was admitted that the suit property belonged to Santokh Singh, who died on 22.6.2000, but denied that the plaintiff had ⅙th share in the same. They set up a Will dated 17.12.1998 by which the entire property was bequeathed by Santokh Singh in their favour. They pleaded that the suit property was in their possession on that basis.

(3.) As many as five issues were framed by the trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, out of which issue nos. 1 and 4-A are the relevant ones which are reproduced below:-