DARSHAN SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV KAUR @ SHIV DEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal by defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby judgment and decree dated 01.03.1983 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rajpura, has been set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for possession has been decreed. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit.

(2.) THE detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiff Dial Kaur filed a suit for possession to the extent of 4/5th share of the agricultural land situated within the revenue estates of village Batoli, Tehsil Rajpura, fully detailed in the plaint, on the ground that Waryam Singh, uncle of the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land, who died on 15.12.1974, and had executed a valid 'will' dated 28.06.1974 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing his property to the extent of 4/5th share in her name and 1/5th share in the name of Bhag Singh defendant No.2. It was further averred that plaintiff's father Hazura Singh and Waryam Singh were sons of same mother but from different fathers, therefore, plaintiff used to serve Waryam Singh and consequently 'will' was executed to reward her services. Bhag Singh's mother and wife of Waryam Singh were real sisters, therefore, 1/5th sharewas given to him and mutation was sanctioned accordingly. It was further pleaded that afterwards in connivance with the Naib Tehsildar, Dera Bassi, who was also working as Sub Registrar, Bhag Singh tampered with the 'will' converting the share of plaintiff from 4/5th to4/15th and converting the share of Bhag Singh from 1/5th to 11/15th. It was further averred that Waryami defendant No.1 forcibly occupied the disputed property after the death of Waryam Singh which was yielding an income of Rs.10,800/ - per year.

(3.) UPON notice, defendant No.1 admitted that Waryam Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. It is denied that Waryam Singh had executed any 'will' in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2. It was alleged that plaintiff and defendant No.2 had entered into criminal conspiracy to forge the 'will' in connivance with Ram Lal, Naib Tehsildar, Dera Bassi, and entire manipulation was exposed during the mutation proceedings before Assistant Collect Ist Grade, Rajpura, who reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala for taking necessary action against Naib Tehsildar and other persons involved. As a result of it, Ram Lal, Bhag Singh (defendant No.2), Arjan Singh (scribe) and Jagdish (Reader of Naib Tehsildar) had been challaned under Sections 420/467 IPC. Plaintiff was held to have no concern with the suit property and mutation No.667 which was wrongly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff had been set aside by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajpura and mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. It was further averred that defendant No.1 was the only sister of the deceased and her possession over the suit property is legal and valid. In his written statement, defendant No.2 admitted that Waryam Singh was the owner in possession of the suit property and averred that he executed a 'will' dated 28.06.1974 in his favour as well as in favour of plaintiff thereby bequeathing 11/15th share and 4/15th share to defendant No.2 and plaintiff, respectively. Defendant No.2 controverted the stand of the plaintiff that 1/5th share was given to him and 4/5th share was given to plaintiff.