SARABJEET KAUR Vs. GURMEL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is in second appeal. The plaintiff filed present suit for seeking declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh who had expired on 15.4.99 at village Singhpura, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh Married two ladies namely Smt. Gurmel Kaur (present respondent) and Smt. Amarjit Kaur. The respondent is the daughter of brother-in-law of Jai Singh (brother's daughter of Amarjit Kaur). Plaintiff's case is that Jai Singh died issueless as he was neither blessed with natural born child nor had taken anyone in adoption. She pleaded that Labh Singh, father of the respondent is a clever and cunning person who in order to grab the property of Hardam Singh prepared a bogus and forged Will in favour of the respondent in collusion with his sister Amarjeet Kaur (second wife of Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh). The said Will was forged when she had gone to her parents by taking undue advantage of her absence. The said Will was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kalanwali on 28.10.1997 at Sr. No. 101 in favour of the respondent after framing her as an adopted daughter of said Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh. It was further pleaded that Jai Singh expired on 15.4.1999 whereas mutation of his property was sanctioned in favour of the respondent on 24.4.1999 just after 9 days of his death. It was further averred in the plaint that said Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh was also having land measuring 8 kanals 0 Marlas comprised in Sq. No. 46 Killa No. 1(18-0) at village Raipur which was mutated in favour of the plaintiff and the second wife Amarjeet Kaur in equal share. The plaintiff's allegation is that had there been any Will, the said land would have also been bequeathed by Jai Singh. Thus, the plaintiff has prayed that she be declared as owner in possession of 1/2 share in the land measuring 92 Kanal 9 Marlas being legally wedded wife of Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh and mutation bearing No. 3684 sanctioned on 24.4.1999 of land measuring 92 Kanals 9 Marlas in favour of defendant is wrong and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs are liable to be ignored and further the Will alleged to have been executed by Jai Singh in favour of the defendant on 28.10.1997 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment is also not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from illegally and forcibly interfering into her peaceful cultivating possession over the suit land and further for restraining the defendant from alienating the whole of the suit land, including the share of the plaintiff, by way of sale, transfer, exchange, mortgage or creating any encumbrance on the said land.

(2.) THE defendant filed written statement on 27.1.2000. Besides raising various objections, it was alleged on merits that she was taken into adoption by Jai Singh of his own free will and consent and her adoption was acted upon and implemented in all respects. It was pleaded that the Will dated 28.10.1997 was executed by Jai Singh of his own free will and consent and, is, thus valid. It was also averred that Amarjit Kaur is the first wife of Jai Singh @ Hardam Singh who could not bear a child for a period of 35 years, the plaintiff was taken by Jai Singh as his second wife and at that time he deposited Rs. 20,000/- in her name in the Bank at Kalanwali o the demand of the plaintiff and her mother Tej Kaur which was later on withdrawn by Tej Kaur. It was further pleaded that plaintiff was given 2 acres of land being 320/1563 share in village Singhpura, Tehsil and District sirsa and was also given land measuring 4 kanals in that very village in addition to said 02 acres of land but under the cover of the suit, she wanted to grab the bequeathed property of Jai Singh from the respondent.

(3.) THE trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 3 and 6-A in favour of the defendant, issues No. 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff but dismissed the suit. The plaintiff's first appeal has been allowed. It has been decreed that the adoption deed Ex. D1 is invalid and Will Ex. D2 dated 28.10.97 is not a genuine document. The plaintiff was thus, declared to be the owner in joint possession of half share of the land measuring 92 Kanals 9 marlas. Consequently, mutation No. 3684 dated 24.4.99 was held to be wrong and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff qua 1/2 share of the suit land. It was made clear that since the plaintiff is held to be in joint possession of the suit land in equal share, she shall be at liberty to get the suit land partitioned through appropriate proceedings.