LABH KAUR Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby her suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner of ?th share of the land detailed in head note of the plaint had been dismissed.

(2.) The suit was filed on the ground that mutation No.1361 dated 9.7.1999 regarding the succession of Mohinder Singh did not effect the rights of the plaintiff and the suit was filed for joint possession by retaining the actual physical possession of specific khasra numbers in her possession to the extent of ? the share and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, mortgaging, selling and disposing of the property in dispute. The claim was based on the fact that the Mohinder Singh deceased was the brother of the father-in-law of the plaintiff and who died issueless and his wife had pre-deceased him. It was alleged that Mohinder Singh had executed a will in favour of the plaintiff and due to service rendered by the plaintiff and the will had been handed over to Shamsher Singh who was the brother of the plaintiff. Mohinder Singh who died in Dec., 1994 and the allegation was that the mutation was wrongly sanctioned in the name of defendant Gurmail Singh, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. The cause of action arose when the will was handed over to the plaintiff in the second week of May, 2000 by Shamsher Singh, who was brother of the plaintiff and with him there was a dispute and thus, there were strained relations between the parties. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the defendant was trying to defeat the right by threatening to alienate the land.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was alleged that Mohinder Singh had transferred the suit property to Joginder Kaur, wife of the defendant by a consent decree and the plaintiff had filed a suit against Joginder Kaur which had been dismissed and that Mohinder Singh was residing with the defendant till his death and was looked after by him and his wife. The plaintiff had created false document.