INDERJIT KAUR Vs. HARI SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is by one of the defendant questioning the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court vide which the prayer made by the plaintiffs was allowed in entirety. Respondents filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that they were the owners and in possession of 71 Kanals 1 Marla of land. A prayer for injunction was also made restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession except in due course of law. An alternative prayer was made that if the plaintiffs were not found to be the owner of the entire land then they had a lien of Rs.52,000/ -. The plaintiffs had pleaded that they were owners of half share of the land while the remaining half was owned by Hira Singh, their father who died in October 1979. The defendants were the daughters of Hira Singh. The plaintiffs set up a Will dated 18.10.1979 executed by their father. The plaintiffs approached the revenue authorities for sanction of mutation which was rejected and the property was mutated in favour of all the legal heirs. The plaintiffs had pleaded that Hira Singh owed Rs.52,000/ - to the creditors regarding which a suit for recovery had been filed which had been decreed and the land owned by Hira Singh was put up for auction on 01.12.1980 and Ajit Singh son of Amar Singh had purchased the property. Plaintiff no.1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC and deposited the amount and got the sale set aside. The plaintiff no.1 had borrowed the amount from Gurcharanjit Kaur which was repaid to her. It was pleaded that if the Will was not proved then plaintiff no.1 had a lien of Rs.52,000/ - on the estate left behind by Hira Singh. The defendants took the plea that the Will was fictitious. The plea of lien set up by the plaintiffs was denied.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiffs are estopped to sue by their act and conduct, as alleged? OPD