GURDIAL SINGH Vs. PRITHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1/appellant herein against the judgment dtd. 22/9/1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur in Civil Appeal No.4 of 4/9/1991, thereby reversing the decision/judgment dtd. 6/8/1991 passed by learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing the Civil Suit No.404 of 88/89 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 inter alia submits that respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the appellant and respondents No.1 to 5 herein, being brothers and sisters, and therefore, the heirs of their mother Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (deceased), are the joint owners in equal shares of the land as described in the headnote of the plaint measuring 72 kanal 8 marla situated in revenue estate of village Dholbaha, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and land measuring 58 kanal 15 Marla situated in revenue estate of village Bhanowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur; and a further declaration that the mutation No.4688, 2716 dtd. 29/1/1988 to the contrary is wrong, illegal and ineffective against rights and title of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs and respondents No.3 to 5/defendants No.2 to4; and for joint possession of the same as consequential relief.

(3.) Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that Basawa Singh, father of the appellant/defendant No.1, and respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs, and respondents No. 3 to 5/defendants No.2 to 4, had died on 4/11/1962. Their mother namely Parmeshwari Devi died on 4/9/1987. At the time of death of Parmeshwari Devi, there was no other heir except the appellant/defendant No.1 and the respondents No.1 to 5, th and thus, they were entitled to equal inheritance to the extent of 1/6th share each of the properties left by Parmeshwari Devi. However, to the contrary, appellant/defendant No.1 was claiming that Parmeshwari Devi had executed a Will dtd. 24/8/1987 (Ex.D-1) in his favour and that he was the sole heir of Parmeshwari Devi by virtue of the said Will Ex.D-1. It was contended in the suit that in fact, Parmeshwari Devi did not execute any Will, and Ex.D-1 was a forged document that had been prepared by the appellant/defendant No.1 after the death of Parmeshwari Devi, and the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said so-called Will dtd. 24/8/1987 was ineffective and against the rights of the respondents No.1 to 5. Respondents No.6 to 12/defendants No.5 to 11 were co-sharers.