SWINDER KAUR Vs. DALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1980 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby he allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1977 passed by learned Sub Judge III Class, Amritsar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was decreed for possession of one half of the land situated at village Bhinder.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Gurbachan Singh was the owner of the land measuring 118 kanals 5 marlas in Village Bhinder and one half share out of 92 kanals in Village Dulo Nangal as per Jamabandi for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively. He was married to Swinder Kaur and out of the said wed- lock, Gursharan Singh, Jaswant Singh, Hardev Singh, plaintiffs and Sukhdev Singh and Baldev Singh, defendants were born. However, Gurbachan Singh was not having cordial relations with them. He married with another woman, namely, Dablir Kaur, by way of Chadar Andazi and from the loins of Gurbachan Singh and Dalbir Kaur, Ajmer Singh, Paramjit Singh @ Kaka and Manjit Singh, defendants and two daughters were born. Gurbachan Singh was murdered on 2.11.1976. The plaintiff-appellants along with defendant Nos. 10 and 11 claimed the estate of Gurbachan Singh and pleaded that defendant No. 9 was entitled to 1/7th share of the suit land. The plaintiff-appellants also pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 alleged that Gurbachan Singh had executed a will and had bequeathed his whole estate in their favour. However, the plaintiff-appellants denied the factum of execution of any will and pleaded that it was the result of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 to 4, in collusion with defendant Nos. 5 to 9, had obtained a collusive decree in respect of the suit land from the civil Court. The said decree was not binding. The plaintiffs then filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they along with defendant Nos. 10 and 11 were owners of the suit land. In the alternative, they claimed the possession of the property.

(3.) DISSATISFIED by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1977 passed by learned Sub-Judge III Class, Amritsar, the defendants-respondents filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.1980 as stated in Para 1 of the judgment.