RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF -respondent filed the instant suit for declaration, joint possession and permanent injunction to the effect that Kehar Singh, father of the parties, was owner in possession of the suit land and neither he nor Karam Kaur his widow executed any Will in favour of the appellant -defendant and the mutation No.1831 of the land pertaining to the share of Kehar Singh in favour of the appellant - defendant and Karam Kaur is liable to be set aside. Plaintiff - respondent filed the suit for declaration to the effect that she was the owner to the extent of 1/6th share and appellant is owner to the extent of 1/6th share of the suit land fully detailed in the head note of the plaint with consequential relief for joint possession of the suit land and permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit land in any manner. It was alleged that plaintiff is the real sister of the appellant. Father of the parties, namely, Kehar Singh had died as he was owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share of the total land measuring 96 kanals 12 marlas fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. Kehar Singh and his wife Karam Kaur never executed any Will in favour of defendant or any other person but the defendant and his mother Karam Kaur had obtained the mutation No.1831 of the land pertaining to the share of Kehar Singh in their favour, which is against the law and facts and liable to be set aside and not binding upon her rights. It was further alleged that Karam Kaur, mother of the parties, had also died and after her death, defendant had obtained mutation No.2118 pertaining to the share of Karam Kaur of the suit land which is also illegal, null and void as no notice was given to the plaintiff at the time of sanctioning of the mutation and the same was liable to be set aside. The land is joint Hindu Family Property and plaintiff has every right and interest in the suit land pertaining to the share of her parents. On the basis of mutation No.1831 and 2118, the entries have been incorporated in the revenue record in the name of the defendant which are wrong and liable to be corrected. The defendant by taking undue advantage of wrong entries in the revenue record is trying to sell the suit land to certain persons. Plaintiff - respondent was also entitled to the joint possession of the suit land to the extent of her share. Defendant has refused to admit her claim. Hence, the present suit.
(2.) THE suit was contested by defendant/appellant alleging that Kehar Singh, father of parties, had executed the unregistered Will in favour of the appellant and Karam Kaur, his wife on 19.5.1978 and on his death, defendant and his mother inherited the estate of Kehar Singh deceased on the basis of said Will and mutation No.1831 was sanctioned with the consent of the plaintiff -respondent. The plaintiff -respondent is bound by the mutation sanctioned by the revenue authorities. It was further alleged that Karam Kaur, mother of the defendant had also executed a registered Will dated 3.10.1988 in favour of the defendant. The mutation No.2118 regarding the inheritance of Karam Kaur was sanctioned in favour of defendant. The plaintiff had executed an affidavit dated 28.9.1993 admitting the fact of execution of registered Will dated 3.10.1988 by Karam Kaur in his favour and thus defendant -appellant was in exclusive possession of the suit land and plaintiff -respondent had no right, title or interest in the same. Denying all other averments of the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the mutation No.1831 and 2118 in favour of defendant pertaining to the share of Kehar Singh and Karam Kaur are null and void? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction and declaration as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as she was party to the mutation of inheritance of Kehar Singh and Karam Kaur? OPD 5. Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 8. Relief. ;