JANGIR SINGH Vs. GURDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (9th March, 2004) - This is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff-respondents holding that Will Ex.D1 dated 9.5.1978 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances which have remained unexplained by the propounder namely defendant-appellants. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Major Singh v. Rattan Singh, 1997(3) S.C.C. 546, the following substantive question of law, which would arise for consideration is as under;-

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy and the dispute between the parties, the following pedigree table would be helpful:- <TAB> Gurmukh Singh | _____________________________|_____________________________ | | | Chand Singh Nand Singh Jand Singh | | | | | __________________|__________ | | | | | | | | Jangir Sadhu Sampuran Gurtej | | Singh Singh Singh Singh _____________ | (Defendant-appellants) | | |______________ Gurdev Mara | | Singh Singh Ginder Bhura (Plaintiff- respondents) Singh Singh </TAB>

(3.) The plaintiff-respondents who are grand sons of Gurmukh Singh filed Suit No. 91 of 19.2.1980/T 345 of 28.8.1980 for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they have been owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 2/3rd share and that defendant-appellant No. 1 who is their uncle being the son of Gurmukh Singh is owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share. A further declaration was sought that defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 being minors did not have any concern with the suit land. A prayer for perpetual injunction was also made restraining the defendant-appellants from alienating, mortgaging or transferring the suit land. The case of the plaintiff-respondents is that Gurmukh Singh was owner of the suit land and he expired on 11.8.1979. During his life time, he executed a registered Will dated 9.3.1964 out of his free will and sound disposing mind. He has bequeathed 2/3rd share to the plaintiff-respondents and 1/3rd share to the defendant-appellants their uncle. It was further asserted that on the basis of the Will, the plaintiff-respondents as well as the defendant-appellants had been continuing in their respective possession of the suit land as owner. Defendant-appellants No. 2 to 5 have no concern with the suit land being minors. On the basis of some false Will, the defendant-appellants wanted to claim ownership and attempting to dispossess the plaintiff-respondents from their share. On the same basis, they were trying to alienate the suit land to some other person without holding any title or interest in it.