- (1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by Kapur Singh and Balwant Singh defendants against the judgment dated November 27, 1964, of the Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing their appeal with costs against the judgment and decree dated June 11, 1964 of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby decree for permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint was passed in favour of Jagir Singh and others against them.
(2.) The facts of this case are that Nikka Singh purchased plot Nos. 449 and 450 situated in Industrial Area 'B', Ludhiana, and ee raised some constructions thereon and also got electric motor connection in his name from the Electricity Department. Nikka Singh died no 24.8.1958 without leaving any issue or widow. Jagir Singh, Sant Singh and others plaintiffs, who claimed to be heirs of Nikka Singh deceased in equal shares took possession of these plots with buildings thereon after the death of Nikka Singh. They filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that the Punjab State, defendant No. 1, be restrained from executing a deed of conveyance in respect of these plots in favour of Kapur Singh and Balwant Singh, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, or anybody else excepting them i.e. the plaintiffs an that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 should be restrained from dispossessing them from the said plots and buildings erected thereon.
(3.) The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It was alleged that the value of the suit for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction was not correct, that no valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the Punjab State, defendant No. 1. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of Nikka Singh deceased. They averred that Nikka Singh deceased had executed a valid will pertaining to this property in their favour and, therefore, the suit should be dismissed. On these pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- 1. What is the proper valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction ? 2. Is a suit for mere injunction maintainable ? 3. Are plaintiffs in possession, and if not, what effect ? 4. Has a valid notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, been served on defendant No. 1 ? 5. Are plaintiffs heirs of the deceased as claimed ? 6. If so, have they been excluded by means of a validly executed will by the deceased in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 ? 7. What is the effect of there being no deed of conveyance in favour of the deceased ? 8. Relief.;