NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) during the course of arguments, following substantial questions of law are shown to be involved in the present appeal;

(2.) the plaintiff is in appeal. He filed a suit for declaration claiming that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the land in dispute and that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have no interest, title or claim in the suit land.

(3.) the plaintiff pleaded that originally land in dispute was owned by one chartu. Chartu had two sons, namely, bakhtawar singh and munshi. Chartu died in the year 1935. His property was inherited by the aforesaid two sons, namely, bakhtawar singh and munshi. Bakhtawar singh died on October 25, 1972. The plaintiff claimed that the land in dispute was ancestral and coparcenary property. At the time of his death, bakhtawar singh was unmarried. Plaintiff-niranjan singh is the son of munshi. The plaintiff has claimed that being son of the brother of bakhtawar singh, he had succeeded to the estate of bakhtawar singh exclusively, since there was no other heir. It was further claimed that defendant nos. 1 and 2 had no title, interest or concern with the land in dispute or with the aforesaid bakhtawar singh and as such the mutation got sanctioned by them in their favour along with the plaintiff was illegal, bad and liable to be ignored. The plaintiff claimed that he was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land through the tenants and mortgagees. On the aforesaid averments, the suit was filed.