SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' Regular Second Appeal. Though the suit of the plaintiff Smt Surinder alias Bimla Kaul for joint possession of the land in dispute and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the share of the plaintiff was initially dismissed by the trial Court but the same was decreed by the first Appellate Court in her favour.
(2.) UNDISPUTELY , one Malhar son of Nihal was the owner of the land in question. The plaintiff is the granddaughter of said Malhar. Her father predeceased his father Malhar. The land in question was got mutated by Ram Dass and Sohan Lal, predecessors of the defendants on the basis of the will dated 19.11.1963 alleged to have been executed by Malhar in favour of Ram Dass and Sohan Lal. After attaining the majority, the plaintiff filed the instant suit which was contested by the defendants on various grounds including that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Mool Raj, pre-deceased son of Malhar, the suit is barred by limitation; the suit in the present form is not maintainable; the will dated 19.11.1963 was validly executed by Malhar in favour of Sohan Lal and Ram Dass. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the daughter of Mool Raj and being a legal heir, she was entitled to have a share in the land in question; the will dated 19.11.1963 (Ex.D1) has not been proved and issue No. 2 was decided against the defendants. However, the suit of the plaintiff for joint possession was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of limitation. The said judgment of the trial Court was set aside by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.3.1999, and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed while holding that the same was filed within limitation and the plaintiff was entitled to be declared as in joint possession of the land in question. The findings on issues Nos. 4 and 5 recorded by the trial Court were reversed.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the said judgment, the defendants filed the second appeal which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2004 and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on the point of validity of the will as the same was not properly adjudicated by discussing the evidence in that behalf. The first Appellate Court again decided issue No. 2 regarding validity of the will against the defendants. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal by the defendants.;