BANTI Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff, Smt. Banti, has aproached this Court through the present regular second apppeal.

(2.) A suit for possession qua 1/3rd of the Against order of S. Amarbir Singh Gill, Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar, D/- 25-11-1983. land measuring 287 kanals 4 marlas was filed by plaintiff, Smt. Banti against the defendants. It was claimed by the plaintiff that Bhana son of Moti was the husband of the plaintiff. It was claimed that Bhana along with Darshan Singh (his son) were coparceners of the suit land. The plaintiff was the wife of Bhana and, as such, each one of them had 1 /3rd share in the suit land. Bhana died in the year 1973 at the age of 80 years old. It was claimed that he was not in his senses for the last 3-4 years prior to his death. Since defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were setting up a sale deed dated February 18, 1972 executed by Bhana in their favour for consideration of Rs. 49,700/- and since defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were setting up a fictitious and bogus Will claimed to have been executed by Bhana in their favour, therefore, the plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid sale deed was without any consideration and was a sham transaction and had never been executed by Bhana in favour of the defendants. She also claimed that no such Will, as was claimed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had been executed by Bhana. The plaintiff also challenged the Will set up by defendant No. 5, Ajit Kaur, daughter of Bhana. Claiming that the suit property was ancestral and coparcenary and joint Hindu family property could not have been willed away, both the Wills were challenged by the plaintiff and she claimed that she had 1/3rd share in the suit property along with defendant No. 1.

(3.) This suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement wherein, they challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit as well as claimed that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. It was further claimed that the parties were not forming any joint Hindu family nor the property in question was ancestral or coparcenary property but, on the other hand, the parties were governed by custom. The said defendants specifically asserted the validity of the sale deed dated February 18, 1972 whereby Bhana had sold the suit property to them for a consideration of Rs. 49,700/-. It was claimed that the said sale was to the knowledge and with consent of the plaintiff. The said defendants also claimed that they were in possession of the suit property since its purchase. Additionally, it was claimed that the plaintiff had no right to challenge the alienation under the Hindu law as well. The defendants also maintained that Bhana executed a registered Will dated January 5, 1973, registered on January 6, 1973, in favour of the said defendants Nos. 1 to 3, since plaintiff had strained relations with Bhana and was on litigation with him.