SULAKHAN SINGH Vs. CHHINDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - plaintiffs are aggrieved of judgment and decree dtd. 29/2/2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baghapurana as well as judgment and decree dtd. 12/9/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Moga.

(2.) Appellant - plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit property as per the share, detailed in the plaint, and in the alternate a suit for joint possession of the property, as detailed, was sought.

(3.) Some of the facts, which are not in dispute are that Hari Singh was the owner of the suit property. He was initially married with one Basant Kaur. Plaintiffs - appellants No. 1 and 2 as well as Jeeto whose legal heirs are arrayed as plaintiffs-appellants No. 3 to 6 were born out of this wedlock. Basant Kaur died in the year 1945 and Hari Singh solemnised second marriage with Gurnam Kaur in the year 1947. Defendant No. 1-Chhindo (daughter) and two sons namely Charat Singh (whose legal heirs are impleaded as defendants No. 2 to 4) and Gurcharan Singh were born out of the second wedlock. Gurcharan Singh died unmarried and issueless in the year 1986. Charat Singh also passed away leaving behind his widow and two children arrayed as respondents. Hari Singh passed away on 14/9/1998 and his estate devolved upon his legal heirs vide mutation Nos. 4843 and 4630 on the basis of a registered Will dtd. 22/7/1994. Gurnam Kaur widow of Hari Singh also passed away on 14/3/2005. It is the estate of Gurnam Kaur, which is in dispute, in the present case. Appellants-plaintiffs filed the abovesaid suit claiming to be the legal heirs of Gurnam Kaur and, thus, entitled to inherit her estate. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs after the death of Gurnam Kaur stepped into her shoes and became owners of the suit property to the extent and in the manner, as detailed in the plaint. In the alternate, it is prayed that, in case, the plaintiffs are not found entitled to the relief of declaration, they claimed joint possession as owners/co-owners.