KIRPAL KAUR @ PALO Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "RSA") has been preferred by the appellant-defendant assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 14/8/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court were affirmed in their entirety. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/1989 rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Patti, had decreed the suit instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the appellant has approached this Court contending that the impugned findings are legally unsustainable and vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) The factual backdrop of the case, briefly delineated from the pleadings on record, is as under:-

(3.) Upon issuance of notice, defendant No. 7, Parsin Kaur, admitted the plaintiffs' claim and raised no objection to the decree of the suit. Only defendants No. 3 and 13, namely Kirpal Kaur and Bali Singh, contested the suit; the remaining defendants, despite service, were proceeded against ex parte. In their joint written statement, the contesting defendants raised preliminary objections regarding lack of locus standi, invalidity of the alleged sale deed, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, and limitation. On merits, they denied the plaintiffs' averments, asserted Gian Singh's ownership, relied upon a registered Will dtd. 18/5/1975 in favour of Kirpal Kaur, and pleaded due sanction of mutation thereon. They further denied delivery of possession and execution of the sale deed, praying for dismissal of the suit.