R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs Harnek Singh and Bhajan Singh sons of Santokh Singh have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1999 passed by Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 3.4.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samrala who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff -appellants for declaration and joint possession as prayed for.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they and defendants No. 1 and 2 are absolute owners in equal shares i.e. 1/4th share each of the land fully described in the head-note of the plaint and that a decree for joint possession of the said land be passed in their favour and defendant No. 1 and 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that they and defendants No. 1 and 2 are Jat Sikh and governed by Hindu Law. The suit property is a coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 and Santokh Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was acting as Karta of the family. He died on 24.5.1990 and after his death plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 have become the absolute owners in equal shares of the suit property. The mutation bearing No. 3921 of the suit property in favour of defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 i.e. Sukhdev Singh, Kuldip Singh and Ravinder Singh alias Rajinder Singh respectively is illegal, null and void as the property has been wrongly mutated in their names on the basis of registered will dated 8.5.1990. According to the plaintiff-appellants, defendants No. 3 and 4 are minors and they have been impleaded through their father Kewal Singh, defendant No. 2, are who has no adverse interest against them. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 to 4 only. According to them, the suit was not maintainable. The plaintiffs have not taken the permission from the Court to appoint Kewal Singh as guardian of the minors. The suit property is not a coparcenary property in the hands of Santokh Singh. The plaintiffs were separate in kitchen, mess and residence and the mutation has been correctly sanctioned on the basis of registered will dated 8.5.1980 which was executed in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 by Santosh Singh. With this short defence the said defendants made a prayer for the dismissal of the suit.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed a re-joinder to the written statement of the defendants in which they reiterated their averments made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiffs constitute a Joint Hindu Family coparcenary body ? OPP 2. Whether the suit property is joint Hindu Family coparcenary property ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Joint possession of the suit land ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP 6. Whether the deceased Santokh Singh has executed legal and valid will dated 8.5.90 in favour of his sons, if so, its effect ? OPD 7. Relief." ;