SOHAN SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular second appeal has been filed by Sohan Singh and Jit singh alias Ajit Singh, defendants, against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by Bachhi alias Bachan kaur, plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them (Sohan Singh and Jit Singh alias Ajit Singh) was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Bachhi alias Bachan Kaur, plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of 1/8 share in the land i. e. in the estate of Raju deceased and that defendants 1 to 7 were also owners in possession to the extent of 1/8 share each being the natural heirs of Raju deceased according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was alleged that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Raju, who died issueless and widowless in 1988. It was alleged that he had one real brother namely Bhagwan Singh, who had predeceased him and that the plaintiff was the daughter of said bhagwan Singh alias Bhana, whereas defendants 1 to 7 were the other sons and daughters of said Bhagwan Singh alias Bhana, while defendants 8 to 13 were sons, daughters and widow of Sadhu Singh, predeceased son of Bhagwan Singh. It was alleged that on the death of Raju, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 became joint owners of the suit land to the extent of 1/8 share each being the natural heir of Raju, as per the Hindu Succession Act. It was alleged that defendants 1 to 3 were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and were alleging that there was a Will dated 30-8-1988 in their favour allegedly executed by Raju. It was alleged that in fact, no such Will was executed by Raju in their favour and the alleged Will was illegal and void and that the mutation which had allegedly been sanctioned in favour of defendants 1 to 3 was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Only defendants 3 and 4 contested the suit and it was alleged that defendant No. 3 along with defendants 1 and 2 were owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of Will dated 30-8-1988, executed by Raju in their favour. However, the other defendants including defendants 1 and 2 in their separate written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff in toto.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and perusing the record, learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the 1/8th share in the estate left by Raju deceased and similarly defendants 1 to 7 were owners in possession to the extent of 1/8th share each in the suit land being the natural legal heirs of Raju deceased, according to Hindu Succession Act and that the mutation which was sanctioned in favour of defendants 1 to 3 on the basis of alleged Will dated 30-8-1988 was illegal and void. While coming to this conclusion it was found by the learned trial Court that the defendant no. 3 had failed to prove that Raju had executed any valid Will in favour of defendants 1 to 3 whereas defendants 1 and 2 had already stated that Raju had never executed any Will in their favour. The appeal filed by Sohan Singh and Jit Singh alias Ajit Singh, defendants was dismissed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, upholding the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, said defendants filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.