JOBAN PREET SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 12.5.2010 and that of the lower Appellate Court dated 14.11.2011 whereby suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration declaring plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 to be owners in succession of estate of Gurnam Singh (since deceased) vide registered Will dated 30.5.1986, as per averments, as well as for setting aside two sale deeds bearing Wasika Nos. 861 and 862 dated 9.4.1997 executed by Gurnam Singh, who expired on 13.5.1997, has been decreed by declaring them to be owners of the property by virtue of Will dated 30.5.1986 and have further been entitled for joint possession of the suit property i.e. agricultural land measuring 0-14-13/2/3 Bigha Pukhta and agricultural land measuring 3-5-3 Bigha Pukhta and the sale deeds afore-mentioned have been declared as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs-respondents and further the appellant-defendant has been restrained from alienating the property acquired by virtue of afore-mentioned sale deeds bearing Wasika Nos. 861 and 862 dated 9.4.1997.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents filed civil suit by claiming the relief as afore-mentioned, inter alia on the ground that Gurnam Singh was eldest amongst his brothers and he being unmarried, had no male or female issue and therefore, he was being served and looked after by the plaintiffs. Gurnam Singh being happy with the treatment extended by the plaintiffs, executed Will dated 30.5.1986 in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 to 3. The loan obtained by him from the Cooperative Service Society Bank, Ludhiana was also discharged by plaintiff No. 4 on 7.5.1980. Unfortunately, Gurnam Singh died on 13.5.1997. It has been stated in the suit that he never cancelled the Will and therefore, plaintiffs-respondents were/are entitled to inherit the property as per registered Will dated 30.5.1986. It has further been stated in the suit that Kishan Singh and Amarjit Singh are friends and in Dec. 1996, Kishan Singh got a transaction entered with one Ranjit Singh by concealing the fact i.e. in respect of Khasra number of a land, which was in cultivation near a house, written as 'unirrigated' and when Gurnam Singh came to know about this fraud, he refused to execute the sale deed in favour of Ranjit Singh. Kishan Singh defendant No. 4 took Prem Singh plaintiff No. 4 into confidence and offered medical treatment to Gurnam Singh as he was suffering from heard of hearing and was totally blind. As per the pleadings culled out in the plaint, plaintiffs-respondents felt aghast when after the death of Gurnam Singh, they approached Patwari Halka for the purpose of entering mutation of inheritance of Gurnam Singh and it surfaced that whole of the land of Gurnam Singh had been sold through sale deeds mentioned ibid and mutations have also been mentioned at Serial Nos. 1744 and 1745 dated 7.5.1997 in the name of defendants No. 1 and 3 i.e. Jobanpreet Singh s/o Charanjit Singh and Amarjit Singh s/o Gurdial Singh and even the sale deeds ex facie showed that the property had been sold for a very paltry amount i.e. less than the market value.

(3.) The said suit was contested by the appellants-defendants by taking numerous objections viz-a-viz. maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and lastly, defendants No. 1 and 3 had taken stand that they were bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice as they had become owner on the basis of the sale deeds executed by Gurnam Singh.