CHANAN KAUR Vs. KARTARI D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether any amount of evidence in support of a plea not specifically pleaded by a party can be looked into by the Court, is the substantial question of law, which arises in this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in equal shares and are in possession of 19 Kanals 1 marla, 1/2 share out of 38 Kanals 3 marlas out of the suit land. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no right or interest in the suit and consequently mutation No. 2838 decided on 12-9-1978 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Garhshankar, is ineffective and against the rights of the appellants, or in the alternative, the suit is for joint possession of 19 kanals 1 marla and 1/2 share of 38 kanals 3 marlas in Khewat No. 123/ 232-233 over the suit land., The plaintiffs alleged that the suit land was owned by one Matta son of Gopi, who died in the year 1975. They are the only legal heirs of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have managed to get the mutation entered in their names in collusion with revenue staff on the basis of an alleged Will executed by Matta deceased. The plaintiffs claim to be in peaceful possession over the suit land. The suit was filed after the defendants began to deny the rights of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendants controverted the plea taken by the plaintiffs. They denied that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claim to be the daughters of one of the sons of the deceased namely Tarlok Ram. The deceased is said to have had three sons. They claim to be the only legal heirs of the deceased on the basis of a Will allegedly executed on 18-6-1975. It is claimed that the deceased was unmarried and he was being served by his daughters and defendant No. 3, whom he had treated as his daughters-in-law. The Will dated 18-6-1975 was registered. On the basis of the aforesaid Will, mutation No.2838 was sanctioned.