PREM KUMARI Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISPUTE in this appeal is to the estate of Lal Chand alias Lal Shah. Plaintiffs Sat Pal and Dharam Pal are sons of Diwan Chand and Diwan Chand, the third plaintiff is son of Lal Shah.

(2.) LAL Devi widow of Lal Shah filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts in respect of the property in dispute and other properties against Diwan Chand, Dharam Pal, Sat Pal, Prem Kumari minor daughter of La Shah and others. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 14. 2. 1959 by Shri Hukam Chand, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, vide which the will dated 10. 7. 1956 propounded by Sat Pal, Dharam Pal and Diwan Chand was held to have been duly executed by Lal Shah and, therefore, the plaintiff Lal Devi was held to have no locus standi to file the suit for partition and rendition of accounts. In that suit, Prem Kumari daughter of Lal Shah was sued through Mangni Lal a relation of the parties who himself was defendent No. 5 in the suit.

(3.) TRIAL court by judgment and decree dated 2. 11. 1988 decreed the suit with proportionate costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1 for possession of the building in dispute and for mesne profits as detailed in the decree. Prem Kumari, defendant filed appeal there against and Shri S. S. Arora, Addl. District Judge, Amritsar framed three additional issues arid by his order dated 10. 5. 1994 remanded the case to the trial court under order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for submitting a report on the additional issues. Shri U. S. Gera, Subordinate Judge Amritsar submitted his report dated 25. 7. 1995 after returning findings on the additional issues. Under issue No. 13-B he came to the conclusion that Lal Shah duly executed the will in favour of the present plaintiffs and the same was free from all suspicious circumstances. Under issue No. 13-C, he reported that Prem Kumari was not in possession of the suit property as an absolute owner by inheritance from her father Lal Shah as she had not been given right to sell the property in dispute. Under issue No. 13-D, he returned a finding that possession of defendant No. 1 was not adverse to the plaintiffs and had not matured into ownership. Learned Addl.