The last Will of the testator prevails, and the judgment for possession does not confer ownership.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed by defendant Nos.4 to 6 against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession has been decreed.

Before giving facts of the case, it would be relevant to know as to who are the parties to the suit and for that purpose, a pedigree table is reproduced as under:

3. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 are the sons of plaintiff No.5, who is daughter of Surain Singh, whose property is in dispute. They filed a suit for possession of land measuring 117 kanals 9 ¼ marlas i.e. 1/4th share of land measuring 469 kanals 17 marlas or in the alternative, for possession of 93 kanals 19-2/3 marlas i.e. 1/5th share of land measuring 469 kanals 17 marlas. It was alleged that Surain Singh executed a Will dated 12.03.1978 in his sound disposing mind bequeathing his property in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 (1/4th share); Dasondha Singh/ defendant No.1 (1/4th share); Gurmej Singh/ defendant No.2 (1/4th share) and Ajaib Singh/ defendant No.3 (1/4th share). After the death of Surain Singh on 25.08.1978, defendant No.1 to 6 (which includes three sons of Surain Singh and three sons of Ajaib Singh/defendant No.3) took forcible possession of the land in dispute on the ground that Surain Singh had executed a Will dated 09.09.1969 in their favour and had also suffered a decree in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 on 25.08.1972 in Civil Suit No.41 of 1972. The plaintiffs alleged that the said decree has been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud as Surain Singh had never appeared in the Court and even otherwise, Surain Singh never partitioned his land and was not competent to part with the property in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 by way of said decree and as such it was invalid and ineffective.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written statement in which they did not admit execution of the Will in favour of the plaintiffs. They, however, propounded a Will dated 09.09.1969. Defendants Nos.4 to 6 set up their own case with regard to execution of the Will in their favour by Surain Singh and denied the Will in favour of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that Surain Singh had parted with possession of land measuring 270 kanals 18 marlas in their favour by way of partition and they are in possession of that portion. It was also alleged that decree for possession of the said land was passed in their favour on 25.08.1972 and are owners of that land. Insofar as the Will dated 09.09.1969 is concerned, they followed defendant Nos.1 and 2 in that regard.

5. Defendant Nos.7 to 11 did not contest the suit.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether Surain Singh deceased executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.1 to 3? OPP

2. Whether Surain Singh executed a valid Will in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6? OPD 1 to 6

3. Whether defendant Nos.4 to 6, got a decree dated 25.08.1972, as alleged “If so, its effect? OPD 4 to 6

4. If issue No.3 is proved, whether the decree dated 25.08.1972, is null and void as alleged in para No.4(i) of the plaint? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiffs have locus-standi to sue? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4 to 6.

7. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness? OPD 4 to 6.

8. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata? OPD 4 to 6

9. Whether the suit is infructuous as alleged? OPD 4

10. Whether the order dated 19.06.1980 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jalandhar cannot be challenged in Civil Court? OPD 4 to 6.

11. Whether the suit is properly valued? OPD

12.Relief.

6. The learned trial court while deciding issue No.1 held that the Will dated 12.03.1978 (Ex.P-1) by which Surain Singh had bequeathed his property in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.1 to 3, is valid. The other Will dated 09.09.1969 propounded by the defendants was not proved, therefore, issue No.2 was decided against them. Issue Nos.