Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) FACTS leading to the present Regular Second Appeal are as under:
(2.) SANT Singh (deceased) was having one half share in the total land described in the heading of the plaint. He died about 35 -36 years before filing of the suit leaving behind two widows, namely, Smt. Santi -Plaintiff and Smt. Chotto. Originally the suit was filed by Smt. Santi, widow of deceased Sant Singh on 9.5.1979 as an indigent person. After death of Smt. Santi, Gurdev Kaur was impleaded as her legal representative on the basis of Will dated 6.2.1979, Ex.A -1, executed by Smt. Santi in favour of Gurdev Kaur. Gurdev Kaur was also permitted to sue as an indigent person. Smt. Santi was having 1/4th share in the total land measuring 192 kanals 3 marlas, as mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Smt. Parsin Kaur is the sister of Smt. Chhoto, another widow of Sant Singh. Harcharan Singh is husband of Parsin Kaur. Appellants -Defendants Naib Singh, Gurmel Singh and Jagdev Singh are sons of Harcharan Singh and Parsin Kaur. After death of Sant Singh, Harcharan Singh started living with Smt. Santi and Smt. Chhoto, both widows of Sant Singh and started looking after their land and won faith and confidence of both of them. On persuasion of Harcharan Singh, Smt. Santi and Smt. Chhoto accompanied him for executing a Will of their property in his favour to Mansa. Wazir Singh, father of Harcharan Singh and Darbara Singh, uncle of Harcharan Singh also accompanied them. As per case set up by Smt. Santi, though she and Smt. Chhoto wanted to execute the Will of their property in favour of Harcharan Singh and in fact, they executed and got registered a Will dated 17.7.1967 in favour of Harcaharn Singh and, however, taking undue advantage of the fact that she was an illiterate lady and was under influence of Harcharan Singh, he got her thumb impression on another document without making clear the contents thereof to her, while she was sitting in a hotel, on the plea that her thumb impression was being taken for the purpose of execution of the Will. Hence, she put her thumb impression by taking the same as Will. However, one year prior to the filing of the present suit, Harcharan Singh started harassing Smt. Santi and he also refused to give proper return of her land and hence, she visited the office of Sub Registrar, Budhlada, on 6.2.1979 and cancelled her Will dated 17.7.1967, executed in favour of Harcharan Singh and executed another Will in favour of Gurdev Kaur, the present Plaintiff. However, on 20.3.1979, Smt. Santi came to know from Patwari Halqa that Harcharan Singh got executed a mukhtarnama from her and Smt. Chhoto by committing fraud upon her. It is further pleaded that on the basis of said mukhtarnama, dated 17.7.1967, Harcharan Singh executed sale deed of entire property of Smt. Santi in favour of his sons on 20.2.1979, i.e., after few days of her cancelling the Will in his favour and executed another Will in favour of Gurdev Kaur, who is mother's mother's father's sister of Smt. Santi. The said sale -deed is fictitious one and without any consideration and the same is null and void and not binding upon the rights of Smt. Santi. Mutation No. 865, which was sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed dated 20.2.1979 has also been challenged. Plaintiff also claimed possession of the land in dispute on the basis of title, on the plea that mukhtarnama and consequential execution of sale deed by Harcharan Singh in favour of his sons is a result of fraud, illegal and void and a sham transaction.
(3.) SUIT has been contested by Appellants -Defendants No. 1 to 3, inter alia, on the ground that mukhtarnama dated 17.7.1979 was executed by Smt. Santi out of her free Will in favour of Harcharan Singh, their father, who was authorised to deal with the property, in any manner, by Smt. Santi and that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration of Rs.36,000/ - from Harcharan Singh, general power of attorney of Smt. Santi and hence, it is pleaded that Smt. Santi or Gurdev Kaur is having no right to seek possession of the land in dispute from them. It is denied that power of attorney is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. It is also denied that the sale -deed in their favour by their father Harcharan Singh as attorney of Smt. Sasnti is a sham transaction.;