- (1.) The plaintiff-appellants are in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration stating that they were owners of 1/4th share of the property left by deceased Harbans Lal, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, on the basis of natural succession. It was pleaded that Harbans Lal, who died on 6.11.1999, was the father-inlaw of plaintiff No.1 and grand-father of the other plaintiffs. He had two sons and two daughters. The elder son, namely, Satish Kumar, predecessorin- interest of the plaintiffs pre-deceased his father Harbans Lal. The defendants are the other sons and daughters of Harbans Lal. It was pleaded that Harbans Lal was the owner in possession of one shop, one house, 8 marlas of land and certain gold ornaments. The plaintiffs being Class-I heirs of Harbans Lal were the owners in joint possession in 1/4th share of the suit property. However, the defendants were claiming themselves to be the exclusive owner of said suit property and were threatening to alienate the same and as such, a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction had been instituted.
(3.) Defendants No.1 and 3 contested the suit in terms of filing separate written statements, but the pleadings contained therein were identical. It was stated that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, late Satish Kumar had not enjoyed the cordial relations with his parents consequent upon his marriage. Accordingly, through a family settlement, dated 1.8.1981, he had been separated by his father. It was stated that Harbans Lal had died on 6.11.1999 and prior thereto he had executed a Will in sound, disposing mind in favour of Sushil Kumar, defendant.;