- (1.) Labh Singh owned considerable land. He had two sons, namely, Jagmohan Singh (respondent No.1 herein) and Jagjit Singh (since deceased and represented by his legal heirs i.e. petitioners herein). His son Jagmohan Singh, respondent No.1 herein, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the document of transfer dated 17.2.2004 obtained by Jagjit Singh, his brother, in respect of land in suit from Labh Singh was illegal, null and void and was liable to be set aside. Decree of joint possession of 1/3rd share in the coparcenary property was also claimed.
(2.) After death of Labh Singh, his LRs coming on record resulted in emergence of some new facts on record. Smt. Harjit Kaur daughter of Labh Singh impleaded as defendant No.1-B in the suit and respondent No.3 herein, made an application to prove Will dated 12.1.2004 of Labh Singh which he had allegedly executed in her favour. When Jagmohan Singh, respondent-plaintiff had propounded a Will in his favour and had challenged transfer-deed dated 17.2.2004 in favour of Jagjit Singh (predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners herein), a separate Will dated 12.12.2006 (Ex.D-9) was propounded by respondent No.3 herein. Daughter of Labh Singh vide application (Annexure P-4) wanted to prove Will dated 12.1.2004 of Labh Singh in her favour in a clear bid to thwart the claim of Jagjit Singh as also of Jagmohan Singh, her brothers. Clearly enough, and as has rightly been observed by the lower court, matter of inheritance of Labh Singh is in dispute whereas Jagjit Singh son of Labh Singh deceased relies on document of transfer dated 17.2.2004, Jagmohan Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) has propounded Will dated 12.12.2006 and defendant No.1-B, respondent No.3 herein, has set up Will dated 12.1.2004 in her favour.
(3.) Faced with these complexities which had erupted during pendency of the proceedings, the legal heirs have even started disputing the nature of the suit property as a joint Hindu family coparcenary property.;