GURPAL SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gurpal Singh plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated October 11, 1979 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (I), dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs and affirming the judgment and decree, dated September 18, 1976 of the Court of Subordinate Judge First Class, Patiala.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that one Sarmukh Singh had three sons and a daughter, namely Phuman Singh, Kehar Singh, Kishan Singh and Day a Kaur. Gurpal Singh and Gurdial Singh plaintiffs are sons of Daya Kaur. Harchand Singh son of Kehar Singh had six sons, namely, Darshan Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Ranjit Singh, Randhir Singh, Choota Singh, defendants 1 to 5 and Jang Singh (since dead). Nazar Singh defendant No. 6 is son and Bhupinder Kaur defendant No. 7 is widow of Jang Singh. Property of Phuman Singh who died issueless without leaving behind any widow, is land measuring 67 Bighas 9 Biswas fully described in the head note of the plaint is the bone of contention between the parties. Gurpal Singh and Gurdial Singh being the sons of Daya Kaur sister of Phuman Singh filed a suit for possession on the basis of title being the only legal heirs of Phuman Singh. The pleaded that grandsons of Kehar Singh brother of Phuman Singh entered into possession on the basis of the suit land taking advantage to their absence from the village on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Phuman Singh on July 29, 1966 in their favour. According to the plaintiffs, that Will is a waste paper and forged document. Defendant No. 7 Bhupinder Kaur was proceeded against ex-parte vide order, dated January 10, 1975. Defendants 3 to 6 were . minors and they filed written statements through the Court Guardian,

(3.) On the other hand, the case of the defendants as set up in the written statements is that the plaintiffs are not in any way related to Phuman Singh (deceased) who executed a valid Will, dated July 29. 1966 in favour of defendants 1 to 6. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit; that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Darshan Singh defendant No. 1 and Nachhattar Singh defendant No. 2 further claimed that Phuman Singh (deceased) had taken loan amounting to Rs. 7,000/- from the Bank which is being paid by them and they are entitled to recover the same in case the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Nachhattar Singh defendant No. 2 further claimed in his written statement that he had made improvements in the suit land to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. He pleaded that in case the suit is decreed, he is entitled, to the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The defendants also claimed special costs amount to Rs. 500/-. Harchand Singh defendant No. 8 is the father of defendants 1 to 5.