The share of a legatee under a Will who predeceases the testator devolves upon the heirs of the legatee, not the other heirs of the testator.

B.Rai, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Gurpal Singh plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated October 11, 1979 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (I), dismissing the, appeal of the plaintiffs and affirming the judgment and decree, dated September 18, 1976 of the Court of Subordinate Judge First Class, Patiala.

2. Briefly, the facts are that one Sarmukh Singh had three sons and a daughter, namely, Phuman Singh, Kehar Singh, Kishan Singh and Daya Kaur. Gurpal Singh and Gurdial Singh plaintiffs are sons of Daya Kaur. Harchand Singh son of Kehar Singh had six sons, namely, Darshan Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Ranjit Singh, Randhir Singh, Choota Singh, defendants 1 to 5 and Jang Singh (since dead). Nazar Singh defendant No. 6 is son and Bhupinder kaur defendant No.7 is widow of Jang Singh. Property of Phuman Singh who died issueless without leaving behind any widow, is land measuring 67 Bighas 9 Biswas fully described in the headnote of the plaint is the bone of contention between the parties. Gurpal Singh and Gurdial Singh being the sons of Daya Kaur sister of Phuman Singh filed a suit" for possession on the basis of title being the only legal heirs of Phuman Singh. They pleaded that grandsons of Kehar Singh brother of Phuman Singh entered into possession on the basis of the suit land taking advantage to their absence from the village on the basis of Will allegedly executed by Phuman Singh on July 29, 1966 in their favour. According to the plaintiffs, that Will is a waste paper and forged document. Defendant No.7 Bhupinder Kaur was proceeded against ex parte vide order, dated January 10, 1975. Defendants 3 to 6 were minors and they filed written statements through the Court Guardian.

3. On the other hand, the case of the defendants as set up in the written statements is that the plaintiffs are not in any way related to Phuman Singh (deceased) who executed a valid Will, dated July 29, 1966 in favour of defendants 1 to 6. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit, that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Darshan Singh defendant No. 1 and Nachhattar Singh defendant No. 2 further claimed that Phuman Singh (deceased) had taken loan amounting to Rs. 7,000/- from the Bank which is being paid by them and they are entitled to recover the same in case the suit of. the plaintiffs is decreed. Nachhattar Singh defendant No. 2 further claimed in his written statement that he had made improvements in the suit land to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. He pleaded that in case the suit is decreed, he is entitled to the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The defendants also claimed special costs amount to Rs. 500/-. Harchand Singh defendant No. 8 is the father of defendants 1 to 5.

4. On the pleadings of the parties; as many of nine Issues were framed by the trial Court. Under Issue No. 1, it was held that plaintiffs were sons of sister of Phuman Singh (deceased). Under Issue No. 2, it was held that Phuman Singh Had executed valid Will Exhibit D3 in favour of Jang Singh and others and accordingly, this Issue was decided in favour of the defendants. Under Issue No. 3, it was held that the plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Phuman Singh had the locus standi to file the suit. Under Issue No. 4, the suit was held to be not bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Even otherwise, the Issue was not pressed before the trial Court by the defendants. Hence, this Issue was decided against the defendants. Under Issue No. 5, it was found that there was no satisfactory evidence on the file as to who had repaid a part of the loan on behalf of Phuman Singh. This Issue was, therefore, decided against the defendants. Issue No. 6 was not pressed by the defendants. Accordingly, it was decided against them. Under Issue No. 7, the defendants were not found to be entitled to any special costs. Under Issue No. 8, it was found that the plain