ANUP SINGH Vs. BACHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in the present R. S. A. No. 66 of 1981 were the transferee-defendants in the trial and they have filed the present R. S. A. , which has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 1980 passed by the Court of Shri H. S. Bakhshi, Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, who also dismissed the appeal of the present appellant by affirming the Judgment and decree dated 5th November 1979 passed in a suit for possession filed by Smt. Bachni alias Bachan Kaur and Smt. Giano alias Jito, daughters of Surat Singh of village Taragarh, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Bachni and Smt. Giano, contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2, filed, a suit for. possession of the land measuring 21 Kanals 16 Marias, fully described in the head-note of the plaint, which land at one point of time was owned by Surat Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, their father. At the time of the death of said Surat Singh, his widow Smt. Harnam Kaur, Smt. Bachni alias Bachan Kaur and Smt. Giano alias Jito, plaintiffs, Smt. Mohinder Kaur defendant No. 2, and Surjit Singh defendant No. 4, were alive, The case set up by the plaintiffs-Smt. Bachan and Smt. Jito was that their father executed a valid will in respect of his entire properties, including the suit land, on 9th April, 1973 in their favour, as they used to serve the deceased Surat Singh. On the basis of the will they are entitled to the possession, the defendants, including the present transferee-appellants, were requested several times to deliver the possession of the suit land, but they refused to do so. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that in case their will is not proved, they are entitled to claim possession of one-half share of the land in dispute, on the basis of natural succession, as Suit. Harnam Kaur, their mother, died after the death of their father Surat Singh. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that no specific plea regarding limitation for filing the suit has been taken up by the present appellants, but being legal plea, it was-agitated before me in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, and this aspect of the case shall also be dealt with by me in the later portion of the Judgment.