M.L. Singhal, J. - (1.)THERE was one Dalip Singh son of Jhanda Singh resident of village Chamiari, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar. He was owner of land as detailed in the heading of the plaint situated in the area of village, Chamiari, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar as entered in Jainabandi for the year 1975 -76. He died on 9.1.1982 leaving behind his sons Anup Singh -plaintiff, Surinder Singh and Maluk Singh - defendants (No. 1 and 2 and daughter Smt. Bachan Kaur - defendant No. 3. He executed will dated 26.2.1977 while in sound disposing mind in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2, whereby he bequeathed 2/3rd of his properties in favour of the plaintiff and Maluk Singh -defendant No. 2. He bequeathed 1/3rd share of his properties in favour of Surinder Singh -defendant No. 1. While making this bequest, he put an embargo on 1/3rd share bequeathed to Surinder Singh, viz. that he would hold 1/3rd share till his life. He could enjoy its usufruct but it would not have the right to alienate it either by way of sale, mortgage, exchange and gift. It was recited in the will that after the death of Surinder Singh, this 1/3rd share would devolve upon the plaintiff. Anup Singh and defendant Maluk Singh in equal shares. After the death of Dalip Singh, will was not given effect to. Surinder Singh, Maluk Singh and Bachan Kaur -defendants in conspiracy with the revenue staff got mutation No. 2244 sanctioned in favour of them and the plaintiff in equal shares. The said mutation is not binding on the rights of Anup Singh. On these allegations, Anup Singh filed suit for declaration against Surinder Singh, Maluk Singh and Banchan Kaur to the effect that he and Maluk Singh are owners of 2/3rd share and Surinder Singh is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of land but till his life and that mutation No. 2244 sanctioned on 18.2.1982 on his back is not binding on his rights with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining them from alienating, transferring or mortgaging in any manner the property in suit.
(2.)DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that will is forged and fabricated. It never saw the light of the day. It was urged that the plaintiff stood estopped by his act and conduct from filing this suit since mutation in question was sanctioned by the revenue authorities on the basis of inheritance in the presence of the plaintiff, who did not raise a little finger and produce the alleged will before them (the revenue authorities). Dalip Singh did not execute any will dated 26.2.1977 while in sound disposing mind. There was no occasion for him to execute any such will. At the time of execution of the alleged will, Smt. Tej Kaur wife of Dalip; Singh was alive and there was no occasion for him to deprive her of his property when she was dependent upon him. They (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) were with Dalip Singh and were rendering all sorts of services. During his life time, Dalip Singh had devised an arrangement. It was an oral arrangement. 20 kanals of land was given to Maluk Singh and 20 kanats was given to Surinder Singh. He kept 20 kanals to himself. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were cultivating the entire land measuring 60 kanals, much before 26.2.1977, i.e. the date of the execution of the will, Dalip Singh was suffering from Ghagodra (disease). He was not in sound, disposing mind. The alleged will is unnatural and shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Even otherwise the land is Joint Hindu/ancestral/Coparcenary Property which it was not within the competence of Dalip Singh to will away. It was denied that the mutation was sanctioned at the back of the plaintiff. No such will was produced by the plaintiff before the revenue authorities. As such, there was no alternative for the revenue authorities but to mutate the property in equal shares among all the natural heirs of Dalip Singh.
(3.)SMT . Bachan Kaur also contested the suit. It was denied that Dalip Singh executed any will dated 26.2.1977 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. I and 2. The alleged will is forged, false and fabricated and is not binding on her rights. Dalip Singh was putting up with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and his wife Smt. Tej Kaur and they were rendering services to Dalip Singh. Plaintiff never bothered to look after Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh was suffering from Chagodra much before 26.2.1977, as such, he was not in sound disposing mind to execute any will. The inheritance of Dalip Singh was rightly mutated in favour of all his natural heirs.
On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:

1. Whether Dalip Singh deceased executed a valid will dated 26.2.1977 ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land ? OPD

5. Whether the will is forged and fabricated document as alleged in para No. 3 of the preliminary objections ? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD

7. Whether the land in dispute is ancestral coparcenary and Joint Hindu Family property qua the parties, as alleged in para 1 of the written statement? OPD

8. Relief.

Vide order dated 16.9.1983, Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar dismissed the plaintiffs suit, in view of his finding that Dalip Singh did not execute any will Ex. PA being propounded by the plaintiff while in sound disposing mind. It was found that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding will Ex. PA which the plaintiff has not been able to explain to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. It was found that the suit for declaration was maintainable as all of them are lying shown in khasra girdawaris as in possession of the land and property in suit was ancestral property in the hand of Dalip Singh qua his sons.