NACHHATTAR KAUR Vs. SATWANT SINGH BHANGOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants (defendants) have filed the above separate appeals to challenge the judgment and decree dtd. 23/4/2007 passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby judgment and decree dtd. 2/6/2005 passed in civil suit No.28 dtd. 8/6/1993 by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff (respondent No.1) seeking declaration as well as permanent injunction, was reversed. The appellate Court while accepting the appeal by plaintiff also proceeded to dismiss the cross objection bearing Nos.3 and 4 filed by defendants.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Satwant Singh Bhangoo (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of land measuring 76 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khewat No.381, 382, khatauni No.456, Rect.No.57, killa No.13, 14, 15 Rect.No.58, killa No.11, Rect.No.59 killa No.22/1, Rect. No.60, killa No.4, 5/2, 6, 15, 16/1, 16/2, 16/3, 25/1, situated at Mullanpur, who alternatively prayed for a decree for possession of the suit property, and as a consequential relief prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, gifting or alienating the suit property, or dis-possessing the plaintiff. As per the pleadings, Gurdev Singh s/o Narnajan Singh was the owner of suit property and after his death approximately 56 years back, it was inherited by his widow, namely, Surjit Kaur and mother, namely, Harnam Kaur in equal shares. Later, upon demise of Harnam Kaur, the suit property devolved upon Surjit Kaur. The plaintiff being cousin of Gurdev Singh (maternal uncle's son) was related to Surjit Kaur, who used to reside with the plaintiff in Calcutta or at his village Ayali Kalan, and he also used to visit Surjit Kaur at Mullanpur, where she was having her own house. As the plaintiff was serving Surjit Kaur, therefore, she had executed a registered Will in his favour on 4/8/1992 with her free and sound mind, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Calcutta. Surjit Kaur was admitted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 4/2/1993, where she died on 5/2/1993. The defendant Nos.1 to 3, who are Surjit Kaur's brother-Harchand Singh, his wife-Mukhtiar Kaur and their son-Gurmeet Singh, respectively got executed three sale deeds relating to part of the suit property measuring 47 kanals 7 marlas in favour of defendant No.3. Through the first two sale deeds land measuring 16 kanals 0 marla, each was sold by Surjit Kaur against the sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000.00 each, whereas land measuring 15 kanals 7 marlas was sold against sale consideration of Rs.1,73,000.00. According to plaintiff, Surjit Kaur was not in position to execute the sale deeds as she was unconscious and hospitalized for treatment, so the said instruments were forged by the defendants in connivance with Zora Singh (Numberdar) and Daljit Singh (attesting witnesses). Similarly, the Will dtd. 4/2/1993 allegedly executed by Surjit Kaur relating to her remaining land measuring 29 kanals 10 marlas, in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5, namely, Birbal Singh (now deceased) and Surjit Kaur wd/o Nand Singh is also a forged document. The plaintiff came to learn about execution of these sale deeds and Will, when mutation of inheritance was entered in favour of defendants. The defendants are threatening to sell, mortgage, gift or alienate the land in dispute and despite the requests made by the plaintiff, regarding his claim in the suit property, they have refused to acknowledge the same, therefore, on this cause of action, he filed the suit seeking decree for declaration and injunction.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing separate written statements. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their joint written statement raised preliminary objections relating to the maintainability of the suit, locus standi, lack of cause of action etc. and on merits, it was pleaded that Surjit Kaur never resided in Calcutta or lived with plaintiff, as earlier she was residing at Mullanpur, but for the last few years, she started living with defendant Nos.1 to 3, who are her real brother, sister-in-law and nephew, respectively. Further, it was pleaded that the plaintiff is not related to Surjit Kaur and the Will dtd. 4/8/1992 propounded by him does not bear her thumb impression, and execution of the Will was disputed by claiming that she executed Will and three sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 3/2/1993. While denying the other averments in the plaint, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.