SAT PAL SINGH Vs. SMT. HARMINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine will dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 692 and 1793 of 1983.

(2.) In these regular second appeals, the dispute relates to the estate of Deva Singh son of Bogh Singh alias Bhola Singh who died on 2.7.1973. Harbans Singh claiming himself to be son of Deva Singh filed suit against Sunder Kaur for possession of land measuring 92 K. 12 M., details of which have been given in the heading of the plaint. He also claimed relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant from alienating the suit land. In the suit, it was claimed by the plaintiff that Sunder Kaur is not the legally wedded wife of Deva Singh and Will alleged to have been executed by Deva Singh in her favour was never executed by Deva Singh. Mutation sanctioned on 28.6.1974 in favour of Sunder Kaur on the basis of Will is wrong, illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit and challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit as it was alleged that he is not the son of the deceased. She denied the allegation of the plaintiff that she is not the legally wedded wife of Deva Singh. She rather claimed that she was legally wedded wife of Deva Singh deceased and Deva Singh in his life time had adopted Satpal Singh and Sukhjit Kaur as his son and daughter respectively. She further stated that she lived with Deva Singh for 30/40 years and is his legally wedded wife and has always been treated as such by the relatives and inhabitants of the locality. Satpal Singh and Sukhjit Kaur filed application for being impleaded as defendants as they claimed themselves to be adopted son and daughter respectively of deceased Deva Singh. They were added as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and they also filed written statement. They took similar pleas as those of defendant No. 1 i.e. Sunder Kaur. During the pendency of the suit, Harbans Singh died and his legal representatives i.e. the present plaintiffs were brought on the record vide order dated 23.1.1975 of the trial court.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: