- (1.) The defendants/appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) Briefly noticed, the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of 1/2 share of 159 kanals, 18 marlas of land and defendant No.4-Randhir Singh is also the owner in possession of the remaining 1/2 share. It was pleaded that the suit property has been inherited by the plaintiff as also defendant No.4 being brothers upon the death of their mother namely Smt. Hans Kaur. A declaration was sought that the alleged Will stated to have been executed by Smt. Hans Kaur on 19.04.1983 and subsequent mutation No.247 dated 04.08.1984 in the name of defendants No.1 to 3 was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that such Will is a forged and fabricated document and accordingly, the plaintiff also prayed for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit property as also for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property further on the basis of such wrong revenue entries based upon the forged and fabricated Will dated 19.04.1983. It was also pleaded that the defendants No.1 to 3 are the sons of defendant No.4 whereas, plaintiff and defendant No.4 are real brothers and their mother Smt. Hans Kaur had become owner in possession of 286 kanals, 18 marlas of land on account of judgment and decree dated 07.05.1971 passed by the competent civil Court and consequently, mutation No.72 had been entered into by the revenue officer on 20.03.1972. It was pleaded that thereafter Smt. Hans Kaur sold away the land through different sale deeds and ultimately, she remained joint owner in possession of the suit land measuring 159 kanals, 18 marlas only. Plaintiff pleaded that he had remained in service from 1972-1985 and as such, the agricultural land was being looked after by defendant No.4 and their mother Smt. Hans Kaur expired in February, 1984 and defendant No.4-Randhir Singh at that point of time had informed the plaintiff that the mutation in respect of the suit land had been entered and sanctioned in equal shares between defendant No.4 and plaintiff. Later, in July, 2000, defendant Nos.1 to 3 had started to assert their title over the suit land and upon enquiries having been made, the plaintiff became aware about the fabricated Will dated 19.04.1983 set up by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and upon the basis of such false and fabricated Will, mutation No.247 dated 04.08.1984 had been sanctioned and the same was null and void, based on fraud and collusion.
(3.) Upon notice, defendant Nos.1 and 3 filed a joint written statement taking of a plea that Smt. Hans Kaur had executed the Will dated 19.04.1983 voluntarily and denied that such Will was a result of any fraud or collusion. The fact of the plaintiff having been in service during the period 1972-85 was admitted. Defendant No.2 also filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was fully aware about the execution of the Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 as also the sanctioning of mutation No.247 dated 04.08.1984 on the basis thereof. It was further stated that at the time of execution of the Will dated 18.04.1983, Smt. Hans Kaur was in a sound disposing state of mind and that she had got the Will herself registered before the Sub-Registrar on 19.04.1983 and defendant No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte.;