L.N.MITTAL, J. - (1.) CM No. 14265.C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 11 days in refiling of appeal is condoned. CM No. 14266.C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 4782 of 2009 Plaintiffs no. 2 to 6 and legal representatives of plaintiff no. 7 (including plaintiffs no. 2 to 6 along with their sisters appellants no. 6 and 7) have filed the instant second appeal, having lost in both the courts below.
(2.) Sadda Singh had four sons and two daughters namely Kaka Singh plaintiff no. 1(since deceased), Bhag Singh (not party to the suit), Rattan Singh plaintiff no. 7, Sham Singh since deceased, Jangir Kaur since deceased - mother of defendants no. 1 and 4 (respondents no. 1 and 3 herein) and Kartar Kaur defendant no. 2 since deceased - mother of defendant no. 3/respondent no. 2). Plaintiffs no. 2 to 6 are sons of Rattan Singh plaintiff no. 7. Dispute in the suit relates to inheritance of Sham Singh who died unmarried and issueless.
(3.) Plaintiffs' case is that Sham Singh died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short, the Act) and therefore, on his death, his property was inherited by his three brothers only (to the exclusion of his sisters), but his inheritance mutation was incorrectly sanctioned in favour of his three brothers and both sisters. On the basis thereof, sister Kartar Kaur suffered decree in favour of her son Charanjit Singh defendant no. 3. In the suit, plaintiffs challenged inheritance mutation of Sham Singh as well as decree suffered by Kartar Kaur in favour of her son Charanjit Singh. Plaintiffs also claimed ownership by adverse possession over the share of sisters of Sham Singh.;