PARGAT SINGH Vs. AAS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Pargat Singh, minor, through his real mother, Jito, who has no interest adverse to the appellant, and another, against the judgment and decree, dated July 31, 1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby judgment and decree, dated January 24, 1977 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Tarn Taran, were affirmed and the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS . Aas Kaur and Dhanno, real sisters filed a suit against Sukhwinder Singh, Pargat Singh and Sadhu Singh, for possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Bootwind, fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. It was pleaded that 74 Kanals 8 Marlas were jointly owned by Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh to the extent of 1/3rd share. Out of this land, Aas Kaur and Dhanno were the owners of 24 Kanals 14 Marlas of land as co-sharers. Sohan Singh died 6/7 years prior to September 26, 1973 when the suit was instituted and on his death, the mutation of inheritance of Sohan Singh was sanctioned in favour of his widow Smt. Ram Kaur. Ram Kaur also died about 2 years before the filing of the suit. Mohan Singh also died. Sohan Singh, Mohan Singh and Ram Kaur died issueless. Aas Kaur and Dhanno being real sisters of Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh inherited the estate left behind by Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh. They became owners thereof. Mutation in their names was also sanctioned. Against that mutation, appeal was filed by the defendants which was dismissed. The defendants took forcible possession of the property in dispute. The defendants alleged that a Will executed by Ram Kaur was in their possession which, according to the plaintiffs, is illegal and forged one. Aas Kaur and Dhanno asked the defendants to deliver possession of the property in dispute, but they refused. Hence, they filed a suit for possession.

(3.) PARGAT Singh and Sadhu Singh defendants feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment, dated July 31, 1979, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.