(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 3862 of 1987, as both the appeals have arisen out of one judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, dated Sept. 8, 1987.
(2.) Balbir Kaur, plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for possession of the suit land claiming herself to be the father's sister of the deceased Mohinder Singh. According to her averments in the plaint, Mohinder Singh was murdered on May 17, 1982. The defendant, Rani, claimed a will to have been executed in her favour from the said Mohinder Singh which according to the plaintiff was got executed under undue influence and by playing fraud. She and her, husband Sandhura Singh and Madan Singh Sarpanch, after serving excessive drinking fabricated the Will. His thumb impression was taken making representation to lease the land for two years. However, the Assistant Collector, Mansa on the basis of the said Will, mutated the land in favour of the defendant Rani on Oct. 28, 1982. Despite the suit dated Nov. 5, 1982, by the plaintiff and the stay order dated Nov. 8, 1982, the defendant sold a part of the land on Nov. 9, 1982 in favour of defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiff, the said Will and the sale deed is against law and that the plaintiff was not bound by
(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1, it was denied that Mohinder Singh was murdered, by her and her husband. She denied that the plaintiff was the father's sister of the deceased, as alleged. It was also denied that Mohinder Singh was addicted to vices. She asserted that she used to serve Mohinder Singh and in lieu of services rendered by her, he executed the will on Feb. 5, 1982, Exhibit D.1, in her favour. Thus, the mutation was rightly sanctioned in her favour on the basis of the Will. She also pleaded that she was competent to alienate the property and had rightly done so. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 2, she took the plea that she was a bona fide purchaser for consideration.