SUKHCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. PARGAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of above indicated two regular second appeals between the same parties, in respect of the same property in dispute, by way of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts and evidence have been extracted from RSA No. 2165 of 2006 titled as ''Sukhcharan Singh etc. v. Pargan Singh,'' for ready reference in this context.

(2.) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeals and emanating from the record, is that Amar Singh son of Khazan Singh was the owner and in possession of the property in dispute. He executed a registered Will dated 31.3.1982 in favour of his three sons and his wife Beant Kaur. She was claimed to have predeceased her husband. After the death of Amar Singh in the year 1987, his three sons, namely, Pargan Singh respondent plaintiff (for brevity ''the plaintiff''), Sarwan Singh (since deceased), being represented by his LRs Sukhcharan Singh, Gursharan Singh & Jagroop Singh sons and Smt. Surinder Kaur widow, appellant Nos. 1 to 3 & 5-defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Ajit Singh appellant No. 4-defendant No. 5 (for short ''the defendants'') inherited and became owners and in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share each, in pursuance of the Will dated 31.3.1982, containing mode of partition. Plaintiff is residing in UK for the last about 40 years.

(3.) It is not a matter of dispute that in the wake of statement of plaintiff, earlier civil suits bearing Nos. 66 and 182 of 1998 seeking decrees for possession by means of partition and civil suit bearing No. 86 of 1998 for a decree of permanent & mandatory injunction filed by him against the defendants were dismissed as withdrawn, without seeking any permission to file the fresh suits on the same cause of action, by virtue of orders dated 30.7.1998 and 7.8.1998 (Ex. D7, Ex. D5 and Ex. D6) respectively. However, it was claimed in the present suit that those suits were withdrawn as the plaintiff was detained by the police and was forced to sign the agreement dated 29.7.1998 (Ex. D1) at the instance and under the pressure of the defendants.