PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. HARDIALPREET SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARAMJIT Kaur, the appellant who has challenged the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Barnala dated 3.11.2011 and the judgment and decree dated 14.1.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, is the daughter of the plaintiff, Gurnam Kaur. The bone of contention between the parties has been the land held by Sadhu Singh. Sadhu Singh is said to have three daughters, out of whom two were married with Pritam Singh and one was though, married to Kuldeep Singh, yet was thrown out of her matrimonial home and was living with Gurnam Kaur. Gurnam Kaur has claimed that she is the widow of Sadhu Singh and that the deceased was living with her and her daughter Paramjit Kaur. She has claimed that defendants No. 2 to 4 were living separately from Sadhu Singh and they never served him. It is claimed that defendant Pritam Singh is a clever person and taking advantage of illiteracy of Sadhu Singh, he forged a Will of Sadhu Singh and got entered the mutation of inheritance of Sadhu Singh on the basis of the said Will. It is claimed that Sadhu Singh was not in a position to execute a Will in the year 2001. The Will dated 15.6.2001 is claimed to be a forged and fabricated document, prepared to grab the share of the plaintiff in the property of Sadhu Singh. She has claimed that she and the three daughters of the deceased are the natural heirs of Sadhu Singh. Defendants No. 2 to 4 had set -up the Will dated 15.6.2001 as executed by Sadhu Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. They have admitted the relationship of Gurnam Kaur and Paramjit Kaur with deceased Sadhu Singh but have claimed that the Will was legal and valid and that on the basis of the same, the property came to defendants No. 1 to 3, the three daughters of Sadhu Singh.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned trial court.

(3.) The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court took up issues No. 1, 8 and 9 together. Under issue No. 1, the defendants were held successful in proving that Sadhu Singh deceased executed legal and valid Will dated 15.6.2001 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. On the basis of this finding, issues No. 8 and 9 have been decided against the plaintiff holding that she is not entitled to the relief of declaration or permanent injunction as prayed for. The other issues were not pressed at the time of arguments and, hence, the suit failed and was dismissed with costs. Gurnam Kaur died in the meanwhile and Paramjit Kaur claiming her to be the legal heir of Gurnam Kaur preferred an appeal which failed before learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 14.1.2013.