ACHHARI AND OTHERS Vs. GURDIP KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sube Singh held 1/3rd share in the agricultural land measuring 359 kanals and 7 marlas situated in village Gujjarpura, tehsil Batala, district Gurdaspur. He said Sube Singh died sometime in the year 1969. Claiming herself to be the daughter of said Sube Singh Smt. Achhri appellant filed a suit (out of which this regular second appeal has arisen for declaration that after Sube Singh's death, she was the owner in possession of the suit property. She claimed that the mutation of inheritance sanctioned by the revenue authorities in favour of the defendants-respondents Gurdip Kaur and others on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed by Sube Singh was wrong and illegal. A positive plea was taken in favour of the minor sons of Tarlok Singh. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that she alone used to reside and serve her father Sube Singh during his life time and being his sole surviving heir, was entitled to inherit his property and that the Will put forth by the defendants respondents was an act of fraud, forgery and undue influence. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Sube Singh; that Sube Singh had executed a Will on 20th January, 1966 in favour of the grandsons of his brothers, namely, Ajit Singh, Hardip Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Ranjit Singh defendants respondents; that Hardip Singh had died and Gurdip Kaur succeeded as his mother; that the will in question was quite genuine and was made by Sube Singh as a result of his love and affection for the children who rendered service to him during his lifetime and that the mutation was rightly sanctioned in their favour.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.

(3.) On consideration of the evidence, the trial Court held the plaintiff to be the daughter testator Sube Singh. On issue No. 2 a finding was returned in favour of the defendants respondents and it was held that with Ex. D-1 was genuine. As a result of the finding on issue No. 2 the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs.