The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Succession Act, Indian Evidence Act, and the Hindu Succession Act in determining the entitlement to inherit property and the validity of wills and decrees.

K.C.Gupta, J.

1. The Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by the defendant, Nachhattar Singh and another, against judgment and decree dated 25.5.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur (Camp at Barnala), whereby the appeal was accepted with cost and judgment and decree dated 27.9.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, was set-aside and the suit of respondent No. 1, Jangir Singh, for joint possession of land except land comprised in Khasra Nos. 453/7(8-0), 453/3/2, 4/2, 859/3(2-0), 6(2-0), 397/1/3(3-8) and 2/6(4-0) was decreed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Bhan Singh was the owner in possession of the suit land and he expired on 4.9.1995 at Village Sehna (Sub Division Barnala), Jangir Singh, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) is the son of Gurdit Singh. Gurdit Singh and Bhan Singh were real brothers and were sons of Partap Singh. In fact, Partap Singh had four sons from the loins of Smt. Ram Kaur, namely, Gurdit Singh, Chand Singh, Jawala Singh and Bhan Singh.

3. It was next averred that Bhan Singh was unmarried and he died issueless. Jangir Singh, respondent No. 1, being his brothers son, was the only legal heir to succeed to his property and, thus, he became owner of the suit property after the death of Bhan Singh. However, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (defendant Nos. 1 to 5) illegally and forcibly took possession of the land in dispute, to which they were not entitled. With these allegations, the suit for possession of the suit land was filed.

4. The appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contested the suit. They took certain preliminary objections that Jangir Singh, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) had no locus standi to file the suit, that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that respondent No. 1 was estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit; that the suit was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the suit was time barred. On merits, they denied the allegations of respondent No. 1 and stated that Bhan Singh was the owner of the suit land and he had given the suit land to them through family settlement and also transferred it in their favour through decree dated 19.7.1990 passed in civil suit No. 115 dated 17.2.1990. They next stated that Bhan Singh resided with Nand Kaur, widow of Chand Singh and also with his nephew i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and they served him with dedication and performed his last ceremonies on his death. They next stated that the name of Bhan Singh was entered in the ration card alongwith them and in lieu of the service rendered by them, Bhan Singh executed registered will dated 9.1.1987 of his free will in favour of Nand Kaur, widow of Chand Singh, who was the sister-in-law of Bhan Singh. They next stated that after the death of Partap Singh, his widow Ram Kaur lived with Babu Singh @ Bhjaja Singh as his wife, who was real brother of Partap Singh and out of the said wedlock, Hardam Singh and Nand Kaur were born and in the presence of Hardam Singh, Jangir Singh was not the natural heir of Bhan Singh. They denied the other allegations of respondent No. 1. Consequently, the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession in the suit land as alleged in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

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

6. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs of Rs. 5000/- as the suit is frivolous in the knowledge of the plaintiff? OPD

7. Relief."

The parties adduced their evidence.

5 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, vide judgment dated 27.9.1997, dismissed the suit of respondent No. 1, Jangir Singh by holding under issue No. 1 that Bhan Singh lived