Collateral Proceedings--Once the will proved before the competent Court, it is not required to be proved again in another suit where the title is flowing from the Will.
Judgment in the previous suit which was though not between the present parties is admissible in evidence.

1. Plaintiff has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Faridkot dated 18-7-1998 whereby judgment and decree in his favour dated 22-7-1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gidderbaha was set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ajmer Kaur widow of Kartar Singh son of Hari Singh was the owner of the property measuring 4 marlas 7 sarsai situated at Gidderbaha. She had constructed double story shop measuring 25 x 16 on the area measuring 1 marla 7 sarsai. Vide mortgage deed 7-5-1987, Ajmer Kaur mortgaged with possession, double story shop constructed on 1 marla 7 sarsai to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-.

3. The plaintiff brought the present suit for possession by way of redemption against the defendants in respect of the property mortgaged by Ajmer Kaur vide mortgage deed dated 7-5-1987 alleging therein that by virtue of a Will in his favour executed by Ajmer Kaur, the ownership rights in the property in dispute have devolved upon him.

4. The suit was contested by defendants. In the written statement it was admitted that Ajmer Kaur had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the defendants on 7-5-1987 but it was denied that the plaintiff is the legal heir of Ajmer Kaur. It was also denied that any Will was executed by Ajmer Kaur in favour of the plaintiff. It was rather claimed that she had left behind natural heirs who have not been impleaded in this case and as such, the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It was further claimed that the possession of the suit property was with Sanjeev Kumar, son of the defendants, six months prior to 7-5-1987, who is continuously in possession and is carrying on business in the name and style of Sanjeev Metal Works but he has not been impleaded as a party. It was also asserted that Murti Rani is a housewife and question of her physical possession/occupation of the premises does not arise.

5. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated his case and denied the averments of the written statement.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the shop in dispute was already in possession of Sanjeev Kumar son of defendant as tenant who was mortgagee? OPD.

1-A. Whether the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not put in possession of the shop at the time of mortgage deed dated 7-5-1987 as recited therein ? OPD.

2. Whether the defendants are not liable to deliver the possession of the disputed shop to the plaintiff despite the redemption of the mortgage? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff is legal heir of Ajmer Kaur and has got locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD.

7. Relief."

7. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. Plaintiff Sohan Singh examined himself as P.W. 1 whereas Amritpal was examined as P.W. 2. Defendants examined Sarabjit Singh as D.W. 1, Sanjeev Kumar as D.W. 2, Surinder Singh as D.W. 3, Munjit Singh as D.W. 3/1 and Behari Lal as D.W. 4.

8. The trial Court consolidated issues Nos. 1, 1-A and 2 and decided all the issues against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. In respect of issue No. 3, it was held that the plaintiff has a right to come to the Court being legal heir of Ajmer Kaur on the basis of registered Will in his favour. It was further held that the defendants are the mortgagees and in no manner, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. No other person was required to be made a party and this issue was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding issue No. 6, the trial Court observed that much stress has been put by the learned counsel for the defendants on the fact that the plaintiff has not been able to prove Will of Ajmer