JAGIR SINGH Vs. GURDIAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagir Singh, the unsuccessful plaintiff, has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, reversing on appeal those of the trial Court, whereby the suit filed by him and Smt. Jagir Kaur, respondent/plaintiff No. 2 for declaration that they were owners-in-possession of 2/5th share of the land measuring 44 Kanals 7 Marlas and for joint possession thereof along with defendants No. 1 to 7, and defendants No. 8 and 9, was decreed.

(2.) The facts-. Admittedly, Inder Singh, father of the plaintiffs, defendants No. 8 and 9 and Surjit Singh deceased, was the owner of land measuring 44 Kanals 7 Marlas, situate at village Chak Kalan, tehsil and district Ludhiana. He died on June 17, 1963, leaving behind plaintiffs, Surjit Singh (since deceased) and defendants No. 8 and 9 as only legal heirs. Surjit Singh died on May 23, 1979 leaving behind his widow Smt. Gurdial Kaur, defendant No. 1, and sons and daughters (defendants No. 2 to 7). Mutation of inheritance No. 3977 was entered on July 30,1965, on the basis of the Will dated May 22, 1968, (Ex. D.1) submitted by Smt. Gurdial Kaur, defendant No. 1 (deceased son's widow) and it was sanctioned in her favour by the revenue authorities on December 21, 1966 (copy Ex. D.2) on the basis of the aforesaid Will allegedly executed by Inder Singh deceased in her favour. Smt. Gurdial Kaur, defendant No. 1, entered into possession of the land subsequently mutated in her favour after the death of Inder Singh deceased. Jagir Singh, plaintiff-appellant and Smt. Jagir Kaur, plaintiff-respondent No. 10, son and daughter respectively of Inder Singh deceased, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners-in-possession of the suit land and, in the alternative, for joint possession, against the defendants/respondents. Defendants 8 and 9 (respondents 8 and 9 in this appeal), daughters of Inder Singh deceased did not contest the suit and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. The suit was only contested by defendant No. 1, widow and sons and daughters of Surjit Singh (deceased son of Inder Singh deceased). The plaintiffs alleged that the heirs of Singh Singh were paying them their share of the lease money and after the death of the last male owner, they had stopped paying the same necessitating the filing of the suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 in her written statement denied the allegations in the plaint and took a positive stand that after the death of her father-in-law, she entered into possession of the land in suit and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in her favour and that her continuous possession is reflected in the record of rights up-to-date.