RAM SINGH Vs. GURDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of two RSAs i.e. RSA-1354- 2015 and RSA-1361-2015 filed on behalf of appellant - Sh.Ram Singh. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Ram Singh had brought a suit against defendants i.e. his mother Smt.Gurdev Kaur since dead now represented by her legal representatives as well as Sh.Gurpreet Singh seeking a declaration that the mutation No.6195 dtd. 29/8/2005 of land measuring 8 kanals 17 marlas situated in revenue estate of village Beer Kalan as per jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, fully detailed in the plaint and judgment, with regard to inheritance of Smt.Ajmer Kaur daughter of Sh.Sampuran Singh in favour of defendant Smt.Gurdev Kaur is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and further transfer deed No.6203 vide which Smt.Gurdev Kaur had transferred the land in favour of Sh.Gurpreet Singh is also null and void and liable to be set aside since Smt.Gurdev Kaur had no right to transfer the suit land since according to him on the basis of Will dtd. 11/1/2001 he is the legal representative of Smt.Ajmer Kaur @ Jamer Kaur to inherit her estate including landed property with electric motor of 7 BHP bearing account No.K-25. The plaintiff also craved for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or mortgaging the suit land and electric motor in any manner to any other person. As per the version of the plaintiff Smt.Ajmer Kaur alias Jamer Kaur, daughter of Sh.Sampuran Singh was owner of the suit land; that on 14/12/1983, she transferred her land in favour of plaintiff and his father through a Court decree, however, the land was not entered in their names, due to this, Smt.Ajmer Kaur had executed a registered will dtd. 11/1/2001 in favour of plaintiff; that Smt.Ajmer Kaur died unmarried and issueless; she owned sufficient immovable property in her name; that she had brought the father of the plaintiff as her son in the family to look after her property and render services to her, therefore, Smt.Ajmer Kaur got entered her entire land in the names of plaintiff, his father and her sister Smt.Gurdev Kaur; that Smt.Ajmer Kaur was real aunt (Maasi) of plaintiff's father and grandmother of the plaintiff and was residing with the plaintiff and his father from the very beginning; that pleased with the services rendered by the plaintiff, Smt.Ajmer Kaur executed a registered Will dtd. 11/1/2001 in favour of the plaintiff; that after death of Smt.Ajmer Kaur, the plaintiff inherited her estate; that mutation No.6195 regarding inheritance of Smt.Ajmer Kaur was got sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 in his absence; that mutation transfer-deed No.6203 vide which defendant No.1 transferred the land in favour of the defendant No.2 is also illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside since no notice was ever served upon the plaintiff before sanctioning of mutation; that Smt.Ajmer Kaur had died on 18/5/2004; that during life time of Smt.Ajmer Kaur, the plaintiff and his father used to cultivate the land in dispute and after her death, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land; that the defendants have threatened to alienate the suit land to which they have no right.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff had brought the suit in question. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and the suit was not maintainable being barred under Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On merits, the defendants admitted that Smt.Ajmer Kaur was owner of the suit land but they denied that she had executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff; rather the Will set up by the plaintiff was dubbed as forged and fictitious. According to the defendants in the year 2000, Smt.Ajmer Kaur had fallen ill and lost her mental faculties and she was confined to bed and she remained in such condition till her death and the plaintiff might have prepared the alleged Will in connivance with the scribe and witnesses; that Smt.Ajmer Kaur was unmarried and issueless. The answering defendants had denied that Smt.Ajmer Kaur had brought the father of the plaintiff in her family to serve her. They further contended that the plaintiff had never resided with Smt.Ajmer Kaur and the plaintiff and his father never served her; that the plaintiff had committed murder of his father; that defendant No.1 served Smt.Ajmer Kaur during her life time; that the alleged Will is forged and fictitious, therefore question of plaintiff to be owner of the suit land being her legal heir did not arise at all. The answering defendants further denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. According to them the mutation No.6195 was rightly sanctioned in favour of the defendant No.1. The defendants had denied that the mutation had been sanctioned in absence of plaintiff and without notice. According to the answering defendants Smt.Gurdev Kaur defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit land being legal heir of Smt.Ajmer Kaur, therefore defendant No.1 orally entered into an exchange with defendant No.2; that she along with Smt.Raj Rani had given other land at Beer Kalan including the suit land to defendant No.2 and took the land of defendant No.2 at village Bhai Ke Pashaur; that she further sold the land, which she had taken in exchange at Bhai Ke Pashaur to Ranjit Singh son of Malkiat Singh, resident of Ludhiana vide sale deed No.1376 dtd. 21/12/2005, so mutation No.6203 of exchange was valid; that neither the plaintiff nor his father was in cultivating possession of the suit land; that after the death of Smt.Ajmer Kaur, Smt.Gurdev Kaur became owner in possession of the suit land; that Smt.Gurdev Kaur had given the suit land in exchange to Sh.Gurpreet Singh - defendant No.2; that now defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit land and he had sown wheat crop therein; that defendant No.2 had taken the suit land in exchange after inspecting the revenue record and after making due inquiry; that it was so done in a bona fide manner and rights of defendant No.2 are duly protected under Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Refuting the remaining allegations, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: