MALOOKA Vs. JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present appeal, are that plaintiff-Joginder Kaur filed a suit for ⅓rd possession from joint possession, which was decreed vide judgment/decree dated 4.1.1984. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No. 2 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.2.1987.

(2.) After loosing the case before the two Courts below, appellant-defendant No. 2 through his L.Rs has filed the present second appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court are contrary to the evidence and have been passed without taking into consideration the evidence lead by the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants have proved on record the Will, which was executed by Mihan Singh. Both the Courts below have not assigned any reason to disbelieve the testimonies of marginal witnesses of the Will. One of the marginal witness was Numberdar of the village for the last about 40 years but still his testimony has not been believed. The appellants by proving the Will on record have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 after 15 years of death of Mihan Singh and throughout this period, the appellants were in exclusive possession of the suit land. At the end, learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have relied upon irrelevant, inadmissible and untrustworthy evidence lead by respondent No. 1 and as such judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.