- (1.) By this common order, both the regular second appeals i.e. RSA Nos. 5416 of 2015 and 5417 of 2015 are being decided together as these arise from the same suit i.e. Civil Suit No. RT-371 dated 18.01.2008/09.04.2011. Both the aforesaid regular second appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga, whereby suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2015 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Moga, whereby two separate appeals filed by the appellants have been dismissed by a common judgment. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of first instance.
(2.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, brief facts relevant for the disposal of this second appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 3 are the children and defendant no.4 is the widow (since deceased), of deceased Gurdev Singh, who was owner of land measuring 59 kanals 05 marlas, as detailed in first para of the plaint. The plaintiffs being daughters of the deceased Gurdev Singh have 3/7 share in the said property. Defendants no.1 to 3 claim that the deceased Gurdev Singh had executed a registered Will in their favour on 8.4.1975, but the plaintiffs do not admit the legality and validity of thereof. The said Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances as the same was never executed by the deceased Gurdev Singh with his freewill. Gurdev Singh died on 27.6.2007 and after his death, defendants no.1 to 3 got sanctioned mutation No.13013 in their favour, on the basis of said Will. The said mutation has been contested and proceeding are still pending before Assistant Collector, Moga. Balwant Kaur-defendant no.4, has also filed a civil suit against defendants no.1 to 3 claiming her 1/4 share out of the property of the deceased Gurdev Singh. The defendants were requested to get mutation of inheritance of deceased Gurdev Singh sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs also, but they refused to do so. Panchayat was also convened in this regard, but to no avail. Rather, defendants no.1 to 3 threatened to alienate the suit property. Hence, suit was filed. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed two separate written statements. Defendants no.1 to 3 filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; estoppel; concealment of material facts etc. On merits, it was averred that Will dated 8.4.1975 is a genuine document, which was executed by Gurdev Singh with his freewill in favour of the answering defendants as he was being looked after by them during his life time. Deceased Gurdev Singh had already given the share of his daughters in the marriage performed in the years 1974, 1980 and 1985 by spending huge amount on their marriage and on the occasions of births of their children.
(3.) It was further averred that there was litigation between defendants no.1 to 3 and defendant no.4, but later on compromise was effected, and now defendant no.4 has no objection qua the ownership of the answering defendants. Defendant no.4 filed a separate written statement on the same lines as that of the written statement of defendants no. 1 to 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for OPP 1-A Whether Gurdev Singh had executed a Will dated 8.4.1985 in favour of defendants OPD 2. Whether the Will dated 8.4.1975 allegedly executed by Gurdev Singh in favour of defendants no.1 to 3 is forged and fabricated document OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to joint possession OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction OPP 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct OPD 9. Relief.";