- (1.) As the Courts below duly recapitulated and discussed the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties in detail, therefore, there appears to be no necessity to again reproduce and repeat the same ' in the instant regular second appeal in this context. However, the epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Mohan Singh son of Mehnga Singh respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for brevity the ''plaintiff), filed the suit against Ranbir Kaur wife of Jeet Singh, Karnail Singh, Niranjan Singh, Mohinder Ram sons of Puran Ram respondent Nos.6 to 9-defendants No.1 to 3 & 3-A (for short the contesting defendants) and other defendants, for a decree of declaration and possession, to the effect that he (plaintiff) and defendants No.4 to 7 are the owners and in possession, in equal shares of the land in dispute, being the legal heirs of Mehar Singh son of Hari Singh (since deceased) and the alleged impugned Will dated 15.6.1992, executed by him in favour of Ranbir Kaur (defendant No.1), mutation No.652 entered in pursuance thereof and the sale deeds dated 17.12.1992 and 7.12.1993 executed by her in favour of contesting defendants and resultant mutations are wrong, illegal, null, void and not binding on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the contesting defendants from alienating the suit land in any manner.
(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Mehar Singh son of Hari Singh son of Sultan Singh was the owner and in possession of the land in dispute and the plaintiff is the son of Mehnga Singh, the real brother of Mehar Singh, who expired on 17.7.1992. His wife Parkash Kaur was stated to have died 5/6 years, prior to his death. The inter-se relations between the parties are shown in the pedigree table as under:- tree table Pg. No. 96
(3.) In this manner. after the death of Mehar Singh. the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 7 were stated to have inherited his estate. in natural succession. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 did not marry with deceased Mehar Singh at any time. as he was about 70 years of age at the time of his death. She has illegally got entered and attested the impugned mutation No.652 in her favour showing herself to be the widow of deceased Mehar Singh and on the basis of false and illegal Will dated 15.6.1992. Taking the benefit of this mutation. defendant No. 1 had illegally sold away the land. by virtue of registered sale deed dated 17.12.1992 to defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they further got entered mutation No.660 in pursuance thereof. Sequelly. defendant No. 1 was claimed to have illegally sold away the land. by way of registered sale deed dated 7.12.1993 in favour of defendant No.3-A. out of the suit land. without any legal right.;