JANGIR KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents for possession has been ordered to be decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs-respondent filed a suit on the plea that agricultural land measuring 222 kanals 12 marlas detailed in the headnote of the plaint situate in Tehsil and District Sirsa was owned by Smt. Phatto wife of Nathal. She died useless and as such her estate was devolved upon the collaterals of her husband. Among the collaterals 1/3rd share passed on to Sucha Singh son of Gaju, other 1/3rd share passed on to descendant of Phatto, brother of Gaju and the remaining 1/3rd devolved on Alla son of Bhana another brother of Gaju. Sucha Singh died before a mutation of inheritance could be sanctioned in respect of his share. The mutation bearing No. 5687 was sanctioned on 4.4.1963. The land of Sucha Singh's share was mutated in favour of his son Surjit Singh, daughter Gulab Kaur, and widow Bhagwan Kaur. Bhagwan Kaur also later died and her share passed on to Surjit Singh and Gulab Kaur, who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. The case of the plaintiffs was that Sucha Singh had other daughters also by the name of Chetan Kaur and Parsan Kaur, who predeceased their children. Mohinder Singh and Smt. Sito plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be son and daughter respectively of Parsan Kaur while Smt. Bhago, Smt. Mukhtiaro and Smt. Naibo plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 claimed to be the daughters of Chetan Kaur. The case of the plaintiffs was that they being the legal heirs of pre-deceased daughters of Sucha Singh were entitled to 1/2 share of the estate of Sucha Singh and they have been deprived of the inheritance by concealing their existence. It was further the case set up by the plaintiffs that by sale-deed dated 12.11.1973, Surjit Singh defendant No. 1 has sold agricultural land measuring 86 kanals and 10 marlas to Smt. Jagir Kaur and Smt. Hamir Kaur defendant Nos. 3 and 5, which is in excess of his share. Sale was challenged by the plaintiffs to be illegal and against their interest. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed their share.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Court below was pleased to frame the following issues :-