- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the defendants aggrieved against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the suit for mandatory injunction for possession directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the portion shown red in the site plan attached which is half portion of the house No.43-L, Block A, Model House, Jalandhar was allowed. The present case is a case of two daughters in law fighting over their rights of the property which has devolved to them through their mother-in-law Rajinder Kaur.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff had averred in the plaint that house in question as mentioned above was purchased by Rajinder Kaur wife of Gurdial Singh vide sale deed dated 6.5.1965. Rajinder Kaur had two sons, namely, Harinder Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh. The plaintiffs are the wife and children of Harinder Pal Singh and the contesting defendants No.1 to 3 are the wife and daughters of late Jaspal Singh. Rajinder Kaur during her life time executed a will on 10.4.1996 and according to the will she bequeathed her property to Harinder Pal Singh, husband and father of the plaintiffs half share towards southern side shown in red in the site plan and to Jaspal Singh, husband and father of the defendants half share towards the northern side shown green in the site plan, who are present appellants. It is, however, averred that the will was already implemented and the defendants were in possession of the property as a licencee on the basis of will. Rajinder Kaur died on 19.6.1997 and thereafter Harinder Pal Singh died on 30.8.2002 and the defendants have been asked to vacate the portion but the defendants were putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. It was, accordingly, pleaded that plaintiffs had already terminated the licence and the defendants have now no right to remain in possession and they were liable to hand over vacant possession on the basis of will executed by Rajinder Kaur. Defendants No.4 and 5 were stated to be proforma and had admitted the rights of the plaintiff. A legal notice terminating the licence had also been served upon the defendants but they refused to vacate the premises and the plaintiffs have no other remedy except to file the present suit.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants no.1 to 3, it was held out that answering defendants are owners in possession of the suit property and never been licencees in the suit property and plaintiffs were estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct. On merits, execution of the will was admitted regarding bequeathing the property to both the sons and that both of them had expired and thus, the legal heirs had inherited their respective rights. The site plan attached with the plaint was also denied as being incorrect. However, implementation of the will was denied and that the defendants were residing in the said portion as licencees. It was alleged that after the death of Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh, husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendants no.2 and 3 in a family settlement had agreed to compensate the plaintiffs in lieu of their half share in the suit property and made payment of Rs.2 lacs in the presence of respectables of the family and friends and the plaintiffs had handed over the possession of the half share of their property to the husband of defendant no.1 of which after his death they had become owners. The said settlement was alleged to have been made in the month of February, 1998. Accordingly, it was held out that defendants were not in possession of the suit property as licencees but were in possession of the property as owners. The said written statement was controverted by filing a replication and it was held out that the defendants were licencees on the portion of the house shown as red.;