- (1.) The present appeal is preferred by the defendants arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar; whereby he had allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) The fact which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration claiming to be the owner in possession of share of the land measuring 94 kanals 7 Marlas as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 situated at village Jalalpura, District Amritsar on the strength of a will dated 29.12.1978 executed by Rattan Singh. The pleadings regarding the suit were that the remaining share of the land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondent and his two brothers Bachan Singh and Darshan Singh and the dispute was only in respect of the share of Rattan Singh deceased. It was alleged that the brothers of the plaintiff were living in Uttar Pradesh and the sisters of the plaintiff were also living in their in laws house and the plaintiff had been looking after Rattan Singh, who had joint mess and cultivation with him and the plaintiff was serving him. In lieu of the said service, the deceased Rattan Singh had executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing entire movable and immovable property and the defendants have no right or interest in the property. It was further the case of the plaintiff that Rattan Singh died in September, 1979 and the last rites were also performed by him and the deceased had treated him as a son even though by relationship he was his elder brother and being issueless and remained unmarried throughout his life. The mutation No.943 sanctioned in favour of the defendants ignoring the will in question was also challenged being null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and accordingly, a declaration was sought that he was a sole heir of the deceased Rattan Singh and being in possession was liable for a decree of declaration.
(3.) The said suit was not contested by defendants No.1,4 and 6 but was contested by defendants No.2,3,5 and 7 and in the written statement the execution of the will in favour of the plaintiff was denied and it was the case of the said defendants that the will is a forged document and was not executed by the deceased as he was not having good relations with the plaintiff. The question of any will in favour of the plaintiff did not arise. It was also denied that Rattan Singh had a joint mess with the plaintiff and the case of the defendants was that deceased was living alone and he was served the meals by the defendants.;