GURDIAL SINGH Vs. RACHHPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 62 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Dhilwan, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, on the ground that defendant No. 1, who is at present entered as an owner to the extent of 1/4th share has no legal right, title or interest in the suit land and prayed for the consequential relief that she may be restrained from alienating the suit land or any part thereof to any body during the pendency of the suit. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that one Kartar Singh son of Jawand Singh was father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He was the sole owner of the suit property. Kartar Singh died on 2.6.1977, but before his death, he executed a registered Will dated 14.2.1974 bequeathing his entire property both moveable and immovable, including the suit land in favour of his two sons, namely, Gurdial Singh, the plaintiff and Gurmail Singh, defendant No. 2 in equal shares i.e. half share each, thereby depriving his daughter defendant No. 1. Smt. Rachhpal Kaur, and his wife Smt. Karam Kaur. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 in collusion with revenue field staff got mutation of inheritance of said Kartar Singh entered and attested in her name, in the name of her mother Smt. Karam Kaur, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 therefore, the said mutation is illegal and the plaintiff claims to be in joint possession of remaining half share in the suit property. It was also pleaded that Kartar Singh had other land in village Mand Dhilwan, which was correctly entered in the name of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 according to the Will to the extent of half share each and the mutation of inheritance of said Kartar Singh entered vide No. 5520 was illegally and fraudulently got sanctioned on 25.8.1977 does not create any right, title or interest in the suit property in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was also pleaded that defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the mortgagees in possession on some area from defendant No. 2 and Smt. Karam Kaur deceased, but they have no other interest in the estate of deceased but since the suit is for joint possession, therefore, they have been impleased as proforma defendants.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the amended written statement in which it was denied that the Will is a result of fraud and misrepresentation etc. It was further denied that the said Will has been revoked. It was rather submitted that in case there is an alleged cancellation deed, the same is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence exerted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on Kartar Singh deceased.