MUKHTIAR KAUR Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent Jarnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession of the suit land against Saudagar Singh deceased now represented by the petitioners, situated at village Naraingarh Sohia, tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur, Saudagar Singh was the owner of 1/3rd share in the suit land measuring 102 Kanals 13 Marlas. He was real Taya (plaintiffs father's elder brother); that in the course of family settlement effected in November, 1985, Saudagar Singh gave his 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff into possession; that defendant Saudagar Singh being sonless also made a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 26.9.1985, that defendant Saudagar Singh had great love and affection for the plaintiff as he was serving him in his old age. Apprehending that defendant Saudagar Singh may deny the rights of the plaintiff, he filed the present suit.

(2.) On 6.1.1989, defendant Saudagar Singh put in appearance and filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff in toto. His statement was also recorded wherein he admitted the plaintiff's claim. The case was adjourned for consideration. Before the case could be taken up on the adjourned date of hearing, defendant Saudagar Singh died. Mukhtiar Kaur and Piar Kaur daughters of deceased Saudagar Singh, made an application for being brought as legal representatives of the deceased on record and the same was allowed. Thereafter, they made an application for amendment of the written statement wherein it was alleged that the alleged family settlement was never effected in the presence of the applicants nor the applicants could be deprived of their rights in the disputed property by Saudagar Singh; that the Will dated 26.9.1985, was forged and fictitious document and did not bear the thumb impression of Saudagar Singh deceased. Applicants sought permission to amend the written statement for the protection of their rights and to withdraw the alleged admission made by Saudagar Singh deceased. It was also alleged that Saudagar Singh did not put in appearance neither did he file the written statement nor did he make a statement in the Court admitting the claim of the plaintiff that in fact an imposter was put in his place to admit the claim of the plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) In the reply filed to the application by the plaintiff, it was contended that the application was not maintainable at that stage; it was further pleaded that the applicants being the legal representatives of the deceased were not competent to introduce a new cause of action in their written statement; that they had only a right to continue with the proceedings in the suit and could protect the rights of the deceased only and could not put up an independent claim of their own. It was denied that any imposter was put in place of Saudagar Singh in Court to file a written statement or make oral statement in the Court.