BALVIR KAUR Vs. GURDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiffs Smt.Gurdeep Kaur alias Devi, a married daughter of Sh.Nama Ram and Sh.Kishan aged about 30 years son of Uttam Ram, a brother of Sh.Nama Ram had brought a suit against defendants i.e. Smt.Balvir Kaur wife of Sh.Lekh Raj and Smt.Paramjit Kaur wife of Sh.Santokh Ram seeking a declaration that plaintiff No.1 - Smt.Gurdeep Kaur alias Devi to the extent of 5/6 share and plaintiff No.2 - Sh.Kishan to the extent of 1/6 share, are owners of land measuring 17 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Burj Mahamad Shah, Tehsil Zira, on the basis of valid registered Will dtd. 15/4/1998 executed by Sh.Nama Ram son of Ralla Ram, resident of Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Tehsil Baba Bakala and that order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Zira dtd. 13/7/2004 sanctioning mutation of inheritance of Sh.Nama Ram on the basis of natural succession, is illegal, null and void; in addition to that seeking consequential relief of symbolic possession as owners of the suit land besides craving for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and making alienation thereof in any manner.

(2.) As per the case of the plaintiffs, the suit land was owned by Sh.Nama Ram,who died on 14/7/2003 at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Tehsil Baba Bakala leaving behind plaintiff No.1 Smt.Gurdeep Kaur @ Devi as his daughter; that Sh.Nama Ram had another daughter by the name of Smt.Jindo, who had predeceased him; that the defendants Smt.Balvir Kaur and Smt.Paramjit Kaur are daughters of Smt.Jindo; that plaintiff No.2 is son of Sh.Uttam Ram, a brother of Sh.Nama Ram; that Sh.Nama Ram used to reside at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh of Radha Soami Sect at Beas; that plaintiff No.1 Smt.Gurdeep Kaur @ Devi along with her family had also been residing at the said Dera; that she used to serve her father Sh.Nama Ram in old age and Sh.Nama Ram had love and affection for her; that Sh.Nama Ram used to stay with his nephew plaintiff No.2 Sh.Kishan whenever he visited village Burj Mahamad Shah, Tehsil Zira and plaintiff No.2 - Sh.Kishan used to look after the property of Sh.Nama Ram in his absence, so Sh.Nama Ram had love and affection for him also; that Sh.Nama Ram had snapped his relations with the defendants after death of their mother Smt.Jindo, who was daughter of Sh.Nama Ram; that Sh.Nama Ram had strained relations with father of the defendants; as a matter of fact the defendants neither resided with Sh.Nama Ram nor served him in his old age; that pleased with services of the plaintiffs, Sh.Nama Ram had executed a valid registered Will in favour of the plaintiffs, which was scribed by Sh.Harjinderpal Sharma, Document Writer and witnessed by Sh.Amrik Singh, Lambardar and Sh.Narinder Singh son of Devi Singh, residents of village Dera Baba Jaimal Singh; that the Will was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Baba Bakala on 28/4/1998; that the Will had been executed by Sh.Nama Ram in his sound disposing mind out of his free will and without any pressure, so it is a genuine document; that it was got registered on 15/4/1998, as such after death of Sh.Nama Ram, the plaintiffs stepped into his shoes as owners of the land in dispute, however, the revenue authorities wrongly sanctioned mutation No.620 regarding inheritance of Sh.Nama Ram on the basis of natural succession, ignoring the legal and valid Will executed by Sh.Nama Ram in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, such order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Zira is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside; that after death of Sh.Nama Ram, plaintiffs are owners of the suit land; that the defendants by taking undue advantage of the wrong mutation threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land by use of force besides holding out threats to alienate the suit property in any manner they liked, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiffs to bring the suit.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit though admitting plaintiff No.1 to be daughter and plaintiff No.2 to be nephew of the deceased and defendants being maternal granddaughters of the deceased, however the defendants denied that the deceased to be resided at Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Beas permanently, though stating that he used to visit that Dera occasionally. The defendants further denied that plaintiff No.1 used to serve Sh.Nama Ram as he used to reside at village Gurali. The defendants further contended that they were not married at that time and they used to serve said Sh.Nama Ram but at the time of visit of Sh.Nama Ram in the Dera, Beas, food was provided to him by the Dera and not by plaintiff No.1; that Sh.Nama Ram never stayed with plaintiff No.1 in Dera and he used to reside separately; that the deceased had equal love and affection for plaintiff No.1 and the defendants; it was denied that deceased had strained relations with father of the defendants; it was further denied that plaintiff No.2 used to look after the property of Sh.Nama Ram; that the defendants offered denial to the claim of the plaintiffs that Sh.Nama Ram had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs, which was got registered by him on 15/4/1998. According to the defendants, the alleged Will is a result of fraud and undue influence got executed by the plaintiffs getting undue advantage of old age of Sh.Nama Ram and it is not the result of free Will of the deceased. According to the defendants, during his last days, Sh.Nama Ram was not in state of good health and his senses were not working properly; the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the revenue authorities were justified in ignoring the Will and sanctioning of the mutation on the basis of natural succession; that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed land, rather all the natural heirs of Sh.Nama Ram are in possession of said land; that the entries made are wrong and are result of fraud. Refuting the remaining allegations in the plaint, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.