RAJPAL SINGH Vs. GURMAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by defendant no.1, aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Court by which the finding recorded on issues no.1 to 4 and 8 are reversed and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision after impleading the newly added respondents-defendants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs no.2 to 11, being the legal heirs of Chunni Lal S/o Kesu Ram, are owners in equal shares of land measuring 130 kanal 00 marla and the sale deeds dated 10.07.1996 and 11.07.1996 registered on 10.07.1996, 11.07.1996 and 12.07.1996 (six sale deeds) executed by defendant no.6 Jaswant Singh as attorney of alleged heirs of Desu Ram in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 i.e. Rajpal Singh and Amrikpal Singh sons of Gursewak Singh, are null and void and the plaintiffs are still continuing to be owners of the suit land despite those sale deeds and also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendants no.1 and 2 from alienating the suit land in favour of any other persons and also interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that Sher Singh son of Sahib Singh, resident of village Danewala Satkosi, Tehsil Abohar was a big land owner. Chuni Ram was cultivating the land measuring 130 kanals of Sher Singh as a tenant. Chuni Ram purchased the said land from Sher Singh under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 in the year 1968 and mutation to that effect was sanctioned in the year 1974. After the purchase, Chuni Ram transferred its possession to plaintiff no.1 Gurmail Singh. Chuni Ram died on 01.02.1993 leaving behind four sons and six daughters who are plaintiffs no.2 to 11. It is alleged that the mutation of inheritance of Chuni Ram was illegally sanctioned in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 who have no concern with him. It is further alleged that a forged Will was prepared, alleged to have been executed by Chuni Ram in favour of one Desu Ram, alleged to be the son of Chuni Ram who had no son in the name of Desu Ram. The alleged Will was witnessed and attested by Shankar Lal and Kanshi Ram defendants no.3 and 4 and Dina Ram defendant no.5 was stated to be the scribe of the Will. The said Desu Ram is alleged to have given power of attorney in favour of defendant no.6 who further sold the property in dispute to defendants no.1 and 2.

(3.) Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit on the strength of their title and on the pleadings of the parties as many as 12 issues were framed which are reproduced as under:-