N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 19. 3. 1990 was dismissed whereas the appeal of Pritam Kaur and another was accepted resulting in dismissal of his suit in toto.
(2.) GAMDUR Singh was owner of 1/6th share in land measuring 80 Kanals 1 Maria which was acquired by the union of India and a compensation of Rs. 3,81,494. 65p was deposited in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda, as compensation amount to be paid to the heirs of deceased Gamdur Singh, Gamdur Singh died on 30. 4. 1987 leaving behind plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 10 as his heirs. Plaintiff laid claim to the compensation amount on the basis of registered will dated 9. 6. 1981. This claim was challenged by the defendants who filed separate written statements i. e. one written statement by defendants No. 1 to 4, second written statement by respondents No. 5,6 and 8 and third by respondent No. 7, Defendants in their written statements denied the material averments made in the plaint specifically challenging the execution of the will dated 9. 6. 1981 in favour of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : (1) Whether Yadvinder Singh is competent to act as guardian and next friend of plaintiff and competent to file the suit ? OPP. (2) Whether Sh. Gamdur Singh executed a valid will dated 9. 6. 1981 in favour of the plaintiff regarding his properties as alleged in para No. 5 of the plaint ? OPP. (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get disputed amount on the grounds alleged in the plaint ? OPP. (4) Whether plaintiff is son of Gamdur Singh? OPP. (5) Whether Gamdur Singh executed a valid will dated 28. 4. 1987 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 in respect of his property, if so to what effect ?opd. (6) Whether order dated 16. 11. 88 passed by Sh. J. P. Gupta the then Ld. Addl. District Judge, Bathinda, operates as res judicate between the parties ? OPD. (7) Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD. (8) Whether suit is mala fide ? OPD. (9) Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD. (10) Relief.
(3.) ON the basis of evidence led by the parties, trial Court on material issue pertaining to execution of will dated 9. 6. 1981 held that the same was not duly executed nor it is free from suspicion. The plaintiff was, however, held to be an illegitimate son of Gamdur Singh and thus entitled to succeed along with other legal heirs of Gamdur Singh by virtue of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This way it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share in the estate of Gamdur Singh. This judgment and decree was challenged by Lakhbir Singh-Plaintiff-as well as Pritam Kaur and Shavinder Kaur defendants No. 6 and 8, which appeals were disposed of by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 21. 5. 1991. 5. Before the appellate Court, parties did not assail the finding of the trial Court in respect of issues No. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and accordingly these issues were affirmed. Challenge was made to the finding of the trial Court in respect of issues No. 2, 3 and;