PARMINDER SINGH Vs. GURNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Regular Second Appeal Nos.179 and 180 of 1999 are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment, being passed in Regular Second Appeal No.179 of 1999, Parminder Singh Vs. Gurnam Singh and others , as both the appeals have arisen from a common judgment and decree.

(2.) Nand Singh had one son, named Gurdial Singh (Defendant No.1) and three daughters, named Kartar Kaur (Defendant No.5), Sant Kaur (Defendant No.6) and Ranjit Kaur (Defendant No.7). Gurdial Singh had three sons, named Kuldip Singh (Defendant No.2), Surinder Singh (Defendant No.3) and Devinder Singh (Defendant No.4). Surjit Kaur (Defendant No.13) is wife and Parminder Singh (Plaintiff) is son of Devinder Singh.

(3.) Plaintiff approached the Court of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Samrala (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') with a plea that Nand Singh, who was owner of the property as described in the head note of the plaint (here-in-after referred to as, 'the suit property'), had executed a Will in his favour on 04.12.1973 and by virtue thereof, he had become its absolute owner but the defendants, Gurdial Singh (since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, Kuldip Singh, Surinder Singh and Devinder Singh) (in R.S.A. No.180 of 1999) had got mutation of the land sanctioned in their favour vide mutation Nos.4762 and 5043 and based thereupon had executed sale deeds dated 18.11.1983 in favour of defendants Gurnam Singh, Shamsher Singh, Shinder Singh @ Surinder Singh, Teja Singh and Baljit Singh. Plaintiff, besides seeking a declaration that he had become owner of the suit property by virtue of Will dated 04.12.1973, and the sale deeds dated 18.11.1983 were void and non-est, also sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the aforestated defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner. It was also stated by the plaintiff that defendant No.4, Devinder Singh had exchanged his share in the land with defendant No.13, Surjit Kaur, while defendant Nos.1 to 4 had transferred possession of the land sold vide sale deed dated 18.11.1983 in favour of the vendees even though they did not have a right to do so, and requests made by the plaintiff to the afore-stated defendants to admit his claim had proved ineffective.