- (1.) VIDE this judgment two Regular Second Appeals (Nos. 1115 of 1987 and 1829 of 1987) are being disposed of as they have arisen from the same suit. The appellants in both these appeals are the defendants.
(2.) THE suit was filed by Pritam Singh and his two sisters, Tej Kaur and Bhagwan Kaur, for declaration that decree dated August 30, 1979 in suit "jagjit Singh v. Mehar Singh" was obtained by aforesaid Jagjit Singh illegally and fraudulently and mutation No. 12 attested on March 28, 1981, on the basis of the aforesaid decree with respect to the land in dispute measuring 55 Kanals-15 Marlas was not binding on the plaintiffs, who claimed title to the land on account of natural succession. They also claimed decree for possession of the aforesaid land. Common ancestor of the plaintiffs and Mehar Singh deceased was Budh Singh. He had three sons namely Wazir Singh, Gajjan Singh and Hira Singh. Mehar Singh was son of Hira Singh, who died unmarried and issueless. Gajjan Singh had a son, Gurdit Singh, and Pritam Singh etc. plaintiffs are his children. The third son of Budh Singh namely Wazir Singh also died issue- less. This pedigree table would show that the plaintiffs are children of brother of Hira Singh, whose son was Mehar Singh.
(3.) WHILE contesting the suit, the defendants put forth alternative pleas. They asserted that the consent decree suffered by Mehar Singh was valid. Mehar Singh had also adopted Jagjit Singh defendant and Mehar Singh also willed away his property in favour of Jagjit Singh and others. Some other pleas were also taken and the suit was tried on the following issues: 1) Whether the decree dated 30. 8. 1979 was obtained by defendant No. 1 through fraud and misrepresentation? OPP 2) Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD 3) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD 4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5) Whether Mehar Singh deceased executed a valid will in favour of defendant No. 1 and against two brothers on 17. 5. 1976? OPD 6) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the suit? OPD 7) Relief. The trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs, holding that the consent decree was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendants. The suit was held to be not within time. Issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants that the suit was not barred by the principle of resjudicata. Issue No. 4 was decided against the defendants, holding that the suit was not bad for non-joining of necessary parties. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the defendants holding that Mehar Singh had executed a valid will in favour of Jagjit Singh defendant and his two brothers on May 17, 1976. Issue No. 6 was decided in favour of the defendants that the plaintiffs had no locus-standi to file the suit. Hence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court on appeal reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The findings on major three issues, relating to the decree, adoption and the will were given in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Jagjit Singh appellant in Regular Second Appeal No. 1115 of 1987 though questioned the findings of the trial Court on these three points, however, primarily attack was on the findings of the lower appellate Court with respect to the consent decree and adoption. In the second appeal primarily the challenge is to the other findings of the lower appellate Court with respect to the will. The interest of the appellants in both these appeals is common that they seek dismissal of the suit.;