NAIB SINGH Vs. GURDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS leading to the present Regular Second Appeal are as under:

(2.) SANT Singh (deceased) was having one half share in the total land described in the heading of the plaint. He died about 35 -36 years before filing of the suit leaving behind two widows, namely, Smt. Santi -Plaintiff and Smt. Chotto. Originally the suit was filed by Smt. Santi, widow of deceased Sant Singh on 9.5.1979 as an indigent person. After death of Smt. Santi, Gurdev Kaur was impleaded as her legal representative on the basis of Will dated 6.2.1979, Ex.A -1, executed by Smt. Santi in favour of Gurdev Kaur. Gurdev Kaur was also permitted to sue as an indigent person. Smt. Santi was having 1/4th share in the total land measuring 192 kanals 3 marlas, as mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Smt. Parsin Kaur is the sister of Smt. Chhoto, another widow of Sant Singh. Harcharan Singh is husband of Parsin Kaur. Appellants -Defendants Naib Singh, Gurmel Singh and Jagdev Singh are sons of Harcharan Singh and Parsin Kaur. After death of Sant Singh, Harcharan Singh started living with Smt. Santi and Smt. Chhoto, both widows of Sant Singh and started looking after their land and won faith and confidence of both of them. On persuasion of Harcharan Singh, Smt. Santi and Smt. Chhoto accompanied him for executing a Will of their property in his favour to Mansa. Wazir Singh, father of Harcharan Singh and Darbara Singh, uncle of Harcharan Singh also accompanied them.

(3.) SUIT has been contested by Appellants -Defendants No. 1 to 3, inter alia, on the ground that mukhtarnama dated 17.7.1979 was executed by Smt. Santi out of her free Will in favour of Harcharan Singh, their father, who was authorised to deal with the property, in any manner, by Smt. Santi and that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration of Rs.36,000/ - from Harcharan Singh, general power of attorney of Smt. Santi and hence, it is pleaded that Smt. Santi or Gurdev Kaur is having no right to seek possession of the land in dispute from them. It is denied that power of attorney is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. It is also denied that the sale -deed in their favour by their father Harcharan Singh as attorney of Smt. Sasnti is a sham transaction.