- (1.)This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, "the Code") impugning the judgment dated 5.10.1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot reversing the view taken by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Moga in his judgment dated 10.2.1982. The Sub Judge has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants.
(2.)The facts in brief are that he plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Suit No. 424 of 29.5.1979 seeking a declaration to the effect that they along with defendant-respondent 1 are owners of 1/12th share of the land measuring 150 Kanals 6 Marlas which is specified in detail in the heading of the plaint. The plaintiff-appellant namely, (1) Kartar Kaur asserted that she was widow of the Bachittar Singh. It was alleged that defendant-respondents 2 to 7 in conspiracy with the Revenue Patwari had got the mutation of inheritance of Bachittar Singh entered in their names at the back of plaintiff-appellants. It was further claimed that plaintiff-appellant 2 Mohinder Singh and defendant-respondent 1 Chhinder Singh were sons of aforementioned Bachittar Singh and, therefore, they were claimed to be the sole heirs. It is admitted position that Bachittar Singh since deceased was owner of l/12th share in the suit land. As defendant-respondents 2 to 7 have got the mutation of Bachittar Singh entered in their names, a prayer for permanent injunction was also made restraining them from transferring, alienating in any way or mortgaging the share of the plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondent 1.
(3.)Defendant-respondents 3, 4 and 6 in their joint written statement denied that plaintiff-appellant-1 Kartar Kaur was the widow or plaintiff-appellant 2 Mohinder Singh and defendant-appellant-1 Chhinder Singh were the sons of Bachittar Singh. It was alleged that Kartar Kaur in fact was the wife of Santa Singh son of Kehar Singh of Village Khara and has never been divorced by him. Defendant-respondents 2 to 7 are claimed to be brothers and sisters of Bachittar Singh deceased. It was also claimed that inheritance had rightly been sanctioned in their favour. The objections were also raised with regard to maintainability of the suit because as the plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondents were not in possession, only suit for joint possession could be maintained which has not been properly valued and was not within time.