SURINDER KAUR Vs. GURMEJ SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of RSA No. 3880 of 2010 and Civil Revision No. 4620 of 2010 titled Surinder Kaur vs. Gurmej Kaur and another as these involve identical questions of fact and law for adjudication, raised between the same parties. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from RSA No. 3880 of 2010.

(2.) Surinder Kaur widow of Gurpreet Singh, plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration that she is owner in joint possession of land measuring 17 Kanals 19 Marlas out of land measuring 52 Kanals 07 Marlas being 1/3rd share by way of inheritance to the estate of Ajit Singh, her father-in-law detailed in the head note of the plaint. Ajit Singh son of Punnu was owner of the suit land and he died on 12.9.2000. The plaintiff is the widow of pre deceased son of Ajit Singh namely Lakhvir Singh. Ajit Singh left behind Gurmej Kaur, defendant No. 1(widow), Gurdeep Singh, son and the plaintiff, widowed daughter-in-law as class-I heirs, entitled to inherit to his estate to the extent of 1/3rd share each. The defendants are alleging and claiming a Will in their favour executed by Ajit Singh and if any Will was produced, the same is invalid, illegal, forged, fabricated, bogus, fictitious, null and void and is not binding against the plaintiff. Ajit Singh was not in a position to execute the alleged Will because he was not in a sound disposing mind and unable to differentiate between good and bad. She also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land, dispossessing her from her share in the suit land forcibly and illegally and further prayed for joint possession, in the alternative.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed their written statement controverting the averments set up in the plaint and challenged entitlement of the plaintiff to inherit to the estate of Ajit Singh. It is pleaded that defendant No. 1 was serving Ajit Singh and in lieu of services rendered by her, Ajit Singh executed Will dated 19.6.1985 in his sound disposing mind and after his death, defendant No. 1 has become owner in possession of the suit land, managed and controlled by her. It is further averred that the plaintiff had continuous litigation with her husband Lakhvir Singh; she never visited house of her in laws and the litigation came to an end after death of Lakhvir Singh. The plaintiff had criminal litigation with Lakhvir Singh and this fact has been suppressed by her.