HAR KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:

(2.) The second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs, who sought for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed for declaration and possession at the trial Court but reversed at the Appellate Court. The suit was filed for declaration on the ground that the property had belonged to one Harnam Singh and after his death, the plaintiffs and the defendants 10 to 18 were the heirs at law but the property was, however, held by defendants No.1 and 2 claiming to be owners of the property and the 3 rd defendant, who was the father of defendants No.1 and 2, was colluding with defendants No.1 and 2 to deny the plaintiffs their entitlement to the property.

(3.) The defence by defendants No.1 and 2 was that the property had been originally obtained on lease from Harnam Singh but he had bequeathed the property by way of Will in his favour on 19.12.1974 that came into effect on 11.07.1979 on his death. The mutation of revenue entry had also been taken in the names of defendants No.1 and 2 which indeed was the cause of action for the plaintiff for the recovery of possession. Their contention, therefore, was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the property. It was also their contention that the defendants had been tenants of the property previously and the suit for ejectment cannot be instituted otherwise than under the procedure referred to under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and Punjab Tenancy Act.