SEWA SINGH Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before venturing into the relative merits of the case of each of the contesting sides their inter se relationship would facilitate better understanding and appreciation of this dispute. One Rupa had five sons, Bhagwan Singh, Hukam Singh, Mangal Singh, Ganga Singh and Dhana Singh (all deceased) and out of whom Mangal Singh had four sons namely Bishan Singh, Puran Singh, Kala Singh-defendant No.1. and Chanan Singh-Palintiff No.1 and two daughters Raj Kaur and Charan Kaur-plaintiff No.2. Out of whom Bishan Singh and Puran Singh died bachelor and, thus, issueless and Raj Kaur has also died in the year 1970. Kala Singh-defendant No.1 again had three sons and two daughters namely Sewa Singh-defendant No.2, Gian Singhdefendant No.3, Paramjit Singh-defendant No.4, Rattan Kaur and Sewa Kaur. It is the estate of deceased Bishan Singh, who died on 16th February, 1984 which is subject matter of dispute between the brothers and nephews. During the course of trial plaintiff No.2 Charan Kaur had died and her LRs have been impleaded as such.

(2.) As per the amended plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that above said Bishan Singh was joint owner in possession of the land detailed and described in the head note of the plaint comprising of:-

(3.) It is averred that Bishan Singh was bachelor and had died issueless and that the plaintiffs during their lifetime had served Bishan Singh and out of this love, affection and relationship with the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to his 2/3rd share of the suit land. It is alleged that defendant No.2 to 4 who are sons of defendant No.1 are very clever persons and with the malafide intention to take Bishan Singh's estate have forged and fabricated some Will and got mutations No.1294, 1156 and 882 sanctioned in respect of lands situated in village Saggal, Balagan and Gangian respectively, which are illegal and inoperative. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants have failed to admit to the genuine request of the plaintiffs and, hence, were forced to institute the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are joint owners in possession of these lands so detailed in the head note of the plaint.