HARI SINGH Vs. KULDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration as joint owner in possession to the extent of ?th share in the land left behind by deceased Sukhdev Singh; was dismissed and his appeal was also dismissed. For the convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred as the plaintiffs and defendants as they are described in original suit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the brother and the defendants are the sisters of one Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh was the joint owner in possession of the property in dispute mentioned in the plaint. He died issueless on 01.01.2007. The plaintiff and defendants were the only legal heirs left behind by Sukhdev Singh. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was entitled to ?th share out of the property left behind by Sukhdev Singh and accordingly, the mutation of succession should have been entered by the revenue authorities. But when the plaintiff went to Halqua Patwari for getting the mutation of inheritance entered in his name then he came to know that mutation No. 11909, regarding inheritance of Sukhdev Singh, has already been sanctioned in favour of the defendants on the basis of Will dated 09.01.2006. It was alleged that the Will in question is fabricated one. The defendants are threatening to alienate the suit property, therefore, he filed a suit.

(3.) Upon notice the defendants/respondents-herein filed a reply claiming that Sukhdev Singh was the owner of the property in dispute; he died issueless; he executed the Will dated 09.01.2006. The Will was got registered on 12.01.2006. On the basis of the registered Will only, the mutation was entered in favour of the defendants. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was residing at Chandigarh and he had strained relations with their brother Sukhdev Singh and there were several civil litigation between the plaintiff and the defendants along with Sukhdev Singh. It was further pleaded that earlier, the plaintiff had forged the Will in his favour, claiming to be a Will of the father of the plaintiff and defendants, Bhan Singh. However, when their father came to know of this, he got that Will cancelled. When their father Bhan Singh expired on 02.04.2004, the mutation of estate of Bhan Singh was sanctioned in the name of the plaintiff and defendants by discarding the alleged Will; claimed by the plaintiff to be in his favour. It was further pleaded by the defendants that the Will in their favour was validly and duly executed by Sukhdev Singh regarding the property left behind by him. Hence, it was claimed that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the properties left behind by Sukhdev Singh.