JOGA SINGH Vs. SAMMA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by Joga Singh (Major) and Kahla Singh, claiming himself to be the minor son of Gurbax Singh, through his mother Suit. Anup Kaur, against Smt. Samma Kaur and 1. 2 others, and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14. 9. 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiaia, first appellate Court, who has reversed the judgment' and decree dated 28. 5. 1984 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, now appellants before this Court.

(2.) SARVSHRI Joga Singh and Kahla Singh, sons of Gurbax Singh and grand sons of Inder Singh, who were born from the womb of Smt. Anup Kaur, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of one-half share of the land measuring 310 Kanals 18 Marias, described in sub-note (A), Situated in village Shadipur, Tehsil and District Patiaia, suit for possession in respect of land measuring 83 Kanals 16 Marias situated in village Shadipur, Tehsil and Distt Patiaia, mentioned in Sub note (B); suit for possession in respect of land measuring 28 Kanals denoted by sub-note (c), also situated in village Shadipur, Tehsil and District Patiaia; suit for possession of the land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marias mentioned in sub-heading 'd' situated in village Shadipur and for mesne profits from Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1979 with respect to the lands mentioned in sub-headings 'b', 'c and 'd' above; suit for possession of the land mentioned in sub-note 'e' situated in village Saunthi; and finally the suit for possession of the land measuring 50 Kanals situated at Gharam mentioned in sub-note 'f'; and the case set up by the plaintiffs was that the land described in sub-notes 'a', 'b', 'c and 'd' was the joint ownership of their grandfather Inder Singh and their father Gurbax Singh. The land mentioned in sub-head 'e' and 'f' was the owner-ship of their grandfather Inder Singh alone. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, namely, Gurcharan Singh, Raghbir Singh, Dayal Singh, Jagir Singh, Resham Singh and Bakshish Singh are in possession of the land mentioned in sub-head 'b' and 'c and defendant No. 13 Mahabir Singh is in possession of the land shown in sub-head 'd' of the plaint. It is further stated that Inder Singh died somewhere in October/november 1975 after executing a will dated 22. 8. 1973 in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus the plaintiffs have become the owners of the suit land and defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and 13, named above, are in possession of the same. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 7 Smt. Samma Kaur claims to be the wife of Inder Singh deceased, although she is not the legally wedded wife. Defendants Nos. 11 and 12, namely, Kashmir Kaur and Lakhmir Kaur are not the daughters of Smt. Samma Kaur born from the loins of Inder Singh Defendant No. 8 Gurbax Singh, i. e. , the father of the plaintiffs, is the son, and defendants Nos. 9 and 1. 0, i. e. , Smt. Harbans Kaur and Smt. Vir Kaur are the daughters of Inder Singh. Hence they have been impleaded as parties to the suit. The land of Inder Singh situated in village Beer Sounthi has also been inherited by the plaintiffs on the basis of the will. The land of village Niwarsi has been wrongly written in the document instead of village Beer Sounthi. It is also stated that Inder Singh deceased has no land in village Niwarsi. The suit filed by Kahla Sigh through his mother who has no adverse interest against him.

(3.) A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs in which they reiterated their pleas made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and 11 to 13. From the above pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :1. Whether the land in dispute was jointly owned by Inder Singh, Narain Singh and Gurbax Singh and the cultivation thereof was separate as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether Inder Singh deceased had executed a will in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged on 22. 8. 73? OPP. 3. Whether Samma Kaur defendant is the wife of Inder Singh and Kashmir Kaur and Lakhmir Kaur are his daughters? OPD. 4. Whether Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged ? OPD.