The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Sec. 70 of the Indian Succession Act, Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the legal principles related to family settlements and decrees against deceased defendants.

1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 17.2.1988 and 21.3.1991 passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff/appellants.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they along with defendant No.4 are the owners in possession of half share of the land measuring 279 kanals 2 marlas as detailed in the plaint on the basis of Will dated 12.3.1979 executed by Banta Singh, previous owner. It was also pleaded that the decree dated 30.9.1985 in favour of the defendants was not binding on them. Consequently, relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendant/respondents from taking possession of the suit land or from alienating it.

3. The suit was brought on the pleadings that Banta Singh son of Chuhar Singh was the uncle of plaintiffs and defendant No.4 and was owner of half share in the suit land. He died on 17.9.1985 issueless and without wife. Plaintiffs and defendant No.5 used to serve him and he executed a Will in their favour on 12.3.1979. The plaintiffs claimed that they along with Sadhu Singh, defendant No.4 used to cultivate the land during his lifetime and they were in possession of the land of Banta Singh deceased.

4. Defendants filed a suit against Banta singh on 12.9.1985 in the Court of Sub judge First Class, Barnala. On 20.9.1985 they produced some other man in place of banta Singh in the Court and got filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs in the suit. The man also made a statement in the Court and the suit was decreed on 30.9.1985. Banta Singh was said to have died on 17.9.1985 and, therefore, the question of appearance of Banta Singh in the Court on 20.9.1985 did not arise. Decree was said to have been obtained by fraud and, therefore, was claimed to be nullity in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiffs. Mutation was also said to be not binding on the plaintiffs.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants wherein relationship as well as execution of the Will by Banta Singh was admitted but it was averred that Banta Singh revoked the said Will on 28.2.1985 vide registered cancellation deed while he was of sound disposing mind. Banta Singh executed a Will dated 17.8.1988 voluntarily in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and on that account defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the legal representatives of Banta Singh and, therefore, entitled to succeed to his estate. It was denied that Banta Singh died on 17.9.1985 and it was averred that Banta singh deceased himself appeared in the court of learned Sub-Judge First Class, barnala on 20.9.1985 and submitted written statement and got recorded his statement in the court. Decree was, thus, claimed to be legal and valid. Since latter Will dated 12.3.1979 was revoked by Banta Singh on 28.2.1985, therefore, the same has no effect. Objection was also raised that the plaintiffs had got no locus standi to file the suit and plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was also raised.

6. After filing the replication, the learned trial court was pleased to frame the following issues: -

1. Whether Banta Singh, deceased, executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 on 12.3.1979? OPP 2. Whether the Will dated 12.3.79 was rescinded by Banta Singh vide revocation deed dated 28.2.1985? OPD 3. Whether Banta Singh deceased, executed a valid Will in favour of defendants nos.1 to 3 on 17.8.1985? OPD 4. Whether Banta Singh died on 17-9-1985? OPD 5. If issue No.4 is proved, whether the decree dated 30.2.1985 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiffs? OPP 6. Whether the suit for declaration is maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Relief.

7. In view of the admission made by the defendants in the written statement issue no.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellants and it was h