SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below vide which the suit of the plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) for declaration as well as possession has been decreed.
(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3 filed the suit in question seeking declaration to the effect that they are the mortgagees in possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas being 1/3rd share of 20 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Shamspur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. They also filed a suit for possession regarding the land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas being half share of the lands measuring 14 kanals 4 marlas situated in the same village. They claimed the aforesaid two pieces of land which belonged to one Charanji Lal on the basis of the will dated 29.7.1970 (Ex.P1), which was executed by the said Charanji Lal in their favour. It was further pleaded that the mutation of the aforesaid land was illegality got sanctioned by Smt. Krishna Devi (appellant No. 1 herein) on the basis of the will date 10.10.1970 alleged to have been executed in her favour by the said Charanji Lal; and subsequently she mortgaged the land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas in favour of appellant Nos. 2 to 4, though she was not having right to do so. Hence, the aforesaid suit was filed. The appellants (defendant Nos. 1, 12, 13 and 14) only contested the aforesaid suit. It was contended that the mutation in favour of appellant-Smt. Krishna Devi was rightly sanctioned on the basis of the will dated 10.10.1970 of Charanji Lal, who was her father. The said will was contested by the plaintiff-respondents before the revenue Court, but in spite of that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the appellant-Smt. Krishna Devi by the revenue Court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the said order was dismissed by the Collector, Ludhiana. The will set up by the plaintiffs in their favour was denied by the defendants. It was further pleaded that appellant No. 1 was the only daughter of Charanji Lal and there was no occasion with Charanji Lal to divert his daughter from the succession. Therefore, the alleged will dated 29.7.1970 (Ex.P1) in favour of the plaintiffs was a fabricated document. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs had illegally taken possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas which was mortgaged with Charanji Lal.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court - 1. Whether the suit is maintainable against the defendant No. 1 ? OPP 2. Whether Charanji Lal (deceased) executed a valid will dated 29.7.70 in favour of the plaintiffs ? OPP 3. Whether Charanji Lal (deceased) executed a valid will in favour of the defendant No. 1. If so, its date, terms and effect ? OPD 1 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and possession as prayed for ? OPP 5. Relief. ;