- (1.) Challenge in the above titled two Regular Second Appeals is to the judgments and decrees, both dated 4.9.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran whereby, while reversing judgment and decree dated 24.03.2014 of Civil Judge [Junior Division], Tarn Taran, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The Court of first Instance, vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2014 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, two separate appeals, one by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants were filed. The first appeal filed by the defendants titled Tejinder Singh and others Vs. Harvinder Singh alias Harbinder Singh and others was allowed and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff titled Harvinder Singh alias Harbinder Singh Vs. Tejinder Singh and others was dismissed. Hence, both these appeals, bearing RSA Nos. 5024 and 5132 of 2014 are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.
(3.) Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that the plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in possession of the suit land. Earlier Piara Singh son of Mewa Singh was co-owner/co-sharer in exclusive possession of the land measuring 45 Kanals 01 Marlas out of land measuring 180 Kanals 04 Marlas. Said Piara Singh was grand father of the plaintiff who executed a valid registered Will dated 2.11.1995, which was registered on 6.11.1995 in favour of the plaintiff in his sound disposing mind. During his life time, Piara Singh mortgaged the possession of the suit land measuring 45 Kanals 01 Marlas to defendants no.1 to 3 in the year 2001 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. After the death of Piara Singh, his entire estate was inherited by the plaintiff on the basis of registered Will dated 2.11.1995, but defendants No. 1 to 3 were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff on the basis of alleged sale deed 10.10.2001, which was prepared by defendants No.1 to 3 in collusion with the marginal witnesses and the scribe, whereas Piara Singh has mortgaged land without possession to defendants No.1 to 3 on 10.10.2001. Piara Singh never executed alleged sale deed. So, defendants No.1 to 3 have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and alienate the same and as such necessity of the suit.;