- (1.) Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 08.08.2006. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate Court on 06.11.2009. This is how, the plaintiff are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a declaration that the suit land, as depicted in para No.1 of the plaint, was owned by the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 and 4, thus, they were the joint owners in possession thereof to the extent of their respective shares and further claimed that the Will, if any, purportedly executed by Ram Chander, was a forged and fabricated document. By way of consequential relief, a decree for injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendants No.1 to 3 from interfering in the joint and peaceful use and occupation of the suit property. It was pleaded that one Ram Chander son of Jaharia r/o village Kapriwas, was the owner in possession of 57 kanal 8 marlas of land, who died intestate. Parties to the lis were purported to be related to the deceased as per the pedigree table set out hitherto below: Ram Jewan Jag Ram Mangal Gopal Balwant Singh Perbhu Jaharia died Singh Singh died issueless Dayal / issueless / / | Ram Chander / / | died issueless / Chattar Singh | / plaintiff No.2 | _____________________ | Khem Chand Amin Chand Jaswant Singh deft.No.4 Plaintiff No.1 deft.No.3 / / / ___________________________________________ Teto Sumer Singh Karan Singh Charan Singh Umrao deft.No.2 deft.No.1
(3.) It was further averred that the land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Ram Chander, who died 2/3 months back intestate and issueless. As defendants No.1 and 2 were seeking to get the entire estate of Ram Chander mutated in their names on the basis of a Will, it was pleaded that he never executed any such Will, during his lifetime. Since, Ram Chander used to live with plaintiff No.1, there was no occasion for him to execute any Will in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. As plaintiffs and defendants No.3 and 4 were the close heirs of Ram Chander, they succeeded to his estate by succession and were, thus, the owners in joint possession. Since, defendants refused to acknowledge the claim of the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit.;