- (1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Chanan Singh, who was the owner of the suit land and some other land had two wives, namely, Kishna Kaur and Karnail Kaur. By Kishan Kaur he had 3 daughters, namely, Gurnam Kaur, Gurdev Kaur and Surjit Kaur. Surjit Kaur had pre-deceased him leaving behind son Karam Singh and daughter Malkiat Kaur. By the other wife Karnail Kaur, Chanan Singh had three sons, namely, Gurdev Singh, Gurmel Singh and Sukhdev Singh and two daughters Harbans Kaur and Harminder Kaur. Chanan Singh died on 8th October, 1964, leaving behind the above named heirs, including his two widows. Mutation No. 3878 in respect of his estate was entered in favour of his natural heirs. However, Gurmel Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh, produced an unregistered will purporting to have been executed by Chanan Singh in their favour bequeathing his property to them. The revenue officer sanctioning the mutation held the will not to be genuine one and sanctioned the mutation held the will not to be genuine one and sanctioned the mutation in favour of all natural heirs of Chanan Singh on 31st October, 1967.
(2.) On 16th June, 1969, aforesaid Gurmel Singh and Sukhdev Singh filed a suit against the remaining heirs of Chanan Singh for a declaration that they and Gurdev Singh who was made a proforma defendant were owners of the land left by their father. The basis of their claim was the said unregistered will. It appears that Gurdev Singh was made a proforma defendant as he had purchased some land from above named Karam Singh and Malkiat Kaur. While that suit was pending Karnail Kaur, Harbans Kaur and Harminder Kaur jointly sold 32 kanals of land, which is now in dispute, in favour of Attar Kaur and Sukhdil Kaur, defendant by means of two registered sale-deeds, Exs. D-1 and D-2 dated 8th July, 1970 for a total sum of Rs. 48,000/-. The suit was compromised on 14th July, 1970. Karnail Kaur, Harminder Kaur and Harbans Kaur gave a statement, copy Ex. D-13 to the effect that the suit be decreed. Gurdev Singh stated, vide Ex. D-14 that in the land which he had purchased from Karam Singh and Malkiat Kaur, shares of the plaintiffs would be 2/3rd and the suit in respect of the remaining land be decreed. Kishan Kaur, Gurnam Kaur and Gurdev Kaur also gave a statement. Copy Ex. D-15, to the effect that they had received Rs. 1,900/- from the plaintiffs and thus, they had no connection with that land and the suit be decreed. That suit was accordingly decreed, vide judgment Ex. P-3. Each of the sons of Chanan Singh was declared owner of 1/3rd share of the land left by him.
(3.) Gurmail Singh, Gurdev Singh and Sukhdev Singh have now filed the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, against Attar Kaur and Sukhdial Kaur for possession of 32 kanals of land which they (i.e. defendants) had purchased during the pendency of the earlier suit. It was averred by them (i.e. plaintiffs) that Chanan Singh had executed a valid will bequeathing all his property to them and consequently the sale of land by Harbans Kaur, Harminder Kaur and Karnail Kaur in their (i.e. defendants') favour was void and ineffective. It was also pleaded that the said sale was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.;