- (1.) The defendant-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.
(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that she was the co-owner in joint possession of the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint, to the extent of 1/2 share, being the sole legal heir of deceased Bhagta and mutation No.6256 dated 13.1.2000 with respect to the share of deceased Bhagta in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 was illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. The plaintiff further sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering in her right in the suit property. It was stated in the plaint that the two brothers i.e. Bhagta and Jagta, were earlier the co-owners of the suit land and the same was recorded in the jamabandi for the years 1997-98. During his life time, Jagta had sold his 1/4 th share out of the suit property, in favour of defendants No.4 and 5. He thereafter expired and his remaining share was inherited by defendants No.1 and 2 being his sons. Bhagta also expired leaving behind the plaintiff i.e. his widow, being the sole surviving legal heir. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the plaintiff had inherited the share of Bhagta i.e. 1/2 share out of the total suit land and in terms thereof, she was the owner and co-sharer in joint possession to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land. The plaintiff asserted that defendants No.1 and 2, who are sons of Jagta, threatened to interfere with her right in the suit property and had started to openly declare that they had got sanctioned a mutation with respect to the share of Bhagta in their favour. The plaintiff thereupon made enquiries and became aware that defendants No.1 and 2 had fraudulently and illegally got entered a revenue entry in their favour even as regards the 1/2 share in the suit land which actually fell by inheritance to her share. Under such circumstances, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff.
(3.) Upon notice, defendants No.1 and 2 filed separate written statements admitting the fact that the suit land was earlier under joint ownership and possession of the two brothers i.e. Bhagta and Jagta. It was also admitted that after the death of Jagta, his share in the suit property was inherited by defendants No.1 and 2 being his sons. The factum of demise of Bhagta in December, 1999 and he having left his widow i.e. the plaintiff was also admitted. However, a defence was set up that during his last days, deceased Bhagta was looked after and was given medical treatment on the basis of money spent by defendants No.1 and 2, and on account of love and affection, he had executed a valid Will dated 10.12.1999 in their favour and also in favour of the plaintiff, namely, Charno. It was pleaded that in terms of the Will, the plaintiff was given land measuring 3 kanals 19 marlas and the rest of the land measuring 20 kanals 3 marlas was bequeathed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in equal shares. It was pleaded that the Will dated 10.12.1999 was validly and legally executed by deceased Bhagta.;