DIALI Vs. AMAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was reversed and suit of the plaintiff decreed with costs.

(2.) Briefly put, Kesar Singh son of Narain Singh was the owner of the properties in dispute. On 2nd January, 1972 Kesar Singh executed a Will in favour of Amar Kaur-plaintiff. Kesar Singh died on 25th October, 1972 leaving behind his widow Kartar Kaur, mother Diali and daughter Amar Kaur-plaintiff as legal heirs. Mutation of the estate of Kesar Singh was sanctioned in favour of the said three heirs equally. The plaintiff has alleged that the mutation has been wrongly sanctioned as she is the sole heir of Kesar Singh deceased) on the basis of Will in her favour. - It is alleged that Diali-defendant (now through legal representatives with the convinance of revenue officials got the mutation entered and sanctioned fraudulently. It is alleged that Banta Singh defendant No. 3 has taken forcible possession of khasra No. 8/2 (2 Kanals 15 Marlas). When the defendant refused to accept the rights of the plaintiff on the basis of the will, she filed this suit.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who appeared and filed written statements. Shrimati Kartar Kaur defendant No. 2 has admitted the claim of the plaintiff in her written statement. She also claimed in the alternative that in case the disputed Will is not proved, she is entitled to 1/3rd share of the property in dispute, being the widow of Kesar Singh (deceased). Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 have filed joint written statement. According to them, the suit is collusive between the plaintiff and her mother Kartar Kaur, defendant No. 2. They have pleaded that the mutation was got sanctioned by Kartar Kaur and Amar Kaur and that no Will was produced at the time of the sanctioning of mutation and therefore it is a forged document. They denied the execution of Will. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit by her acts and conduct. They further stated that the mutation was rightly sanctioned and it was, in the knowledge of the plaintiff but she never challenged the same before any authority. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was also denied. It was pleaded that some khasra numbers were in possession of Chanan and Banta Singh while the others were in joint possession of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2.