TEJA SINGH Vs. GURSHARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit, filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal, filed by the plaintiff and the cross-objections, filed by the defendants, were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Teja Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner of the land measuring 36 kanals 8 marlas, alleging therein that originally one Dyal Singh was owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, Bhagwan Singh, father of the plaintiff and Shamsher Kaur, defendant, inherited the same and that said Bhagwan Singh, during his life-time, had willed away the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, by virtue of the Will dated 25.3.1959. It was alleged that Bhagwan Singh died on or before 29.4.1959 and the land was mutated in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in equal shares, even though the plaintiff was entitled to the entire land as per Will dated 25.3.1959. It was alleged that after the death of Bhagwan Singh, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the entire land and the defendant, taking advantage of the entries in the revenue record, started asserting her claim to the extent of 1/2 of the suit land and trying to alienate the same. In the alternative, it was pleaded that if the will was not proved, the plaintiff was owner to the extent of 3/4th share, as the property was ancestral and coparcenary property of the plaintiff and his father. Bhagwan Singh, who constituted a joint Hindu family and on his death, 1/2 of the land, owned by Bhagwan Singh, would be inherited by the plaintiff and defendant in equal shares, whereas the other 1/2 share would go to the plaintiff, being a coparcenar. In the written statement, filed by the legal representatives of Shamsher Kaur, defendant the execution of the Will, by Bhagwan Singh, in favour of the plaintiff, was denied and it was alleged that it was a forged documents. It was also denied that the suit property was ancestral and caparcenary property qua the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to 3/4 share. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.