NIRANKAR SINGH Vs. JATINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.3.2011, decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff -respondent no. 1 holding that he is entitled to 1/3rd share of the suit land and is further entitled to joint possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act. Further challenge has been laid to judgment and decree dated 9.7.2013 of the first appellate Court, whereby appeal of defendants No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed.

(2.) AS per the averments made, plaintiffs/respondents no. 1 and 2 sought joint possession of 1/3rd share of the suit land owned by Jagir Singh, deceased and also sought declaration that mutation of inheritance of Shri Jagir Singh was sanctioned wrongly and illegally in favour of the appellants, further seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellants from alienating the suit land further in any manner.

(3.) UPON notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit, raising various preliminary objections. It was stated that plaintiffs had got no right, title or interest in the suit property. It was further denied that the suit land was ancestral. It was submitted that the suit property was self -acquired property of Jagir Singh. However, it was admitted that Jagir Singh was having three sons and his son Balkar Singh, predecessor -in -interest of plaintiffs, had pre -deceased him. It was further denied that Jagir Singh along with his sons constituted Joint Hindu Family property. It was further submitted that Balkar Singh died in the year 1993. It was admitted that the first Will was executed on 30.6.1997 whereas the second Will was executed on 20.9.2002 in favour of the appellants in a sound disposing mind and thus, they became owners of the suit land. It was the further case of the defendants that respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement of compromise dated 20.5.2002, vide which she admitted that she has got no right, title or interest in the property of Jagir Singh. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.