Mr. Darshan Singh, J.: - The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dasuya, has been allowed and the suit filed by the appellantplaintiff has been dismissed with costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. The appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on the grounds inter alia that previously the land in dispute was owned by her husband Resham Singh, who died in the month of April 2000 by leaving the plaintiff as his widow, defendants no.1 to 4 widow and children of his predeceased son Amrik Singh, defendants no. 5 to 7 children of her predeceased daughter Jaswinder Kaur and defendant no. 8 as his son. After the death of Resham Singh, the plaintiff and defendants become owners in joint possession of the suit land by operation of law in which the plaintiff has 29/80 share. Defendants no. 1 to 4 have 1/20 share, defendants no. 5 to 7 have 1/16 share each and defendant no. 8 have ¼ share. But, the share of the plaintiff and the defendants have been incorrectly recorded in the mutation no. 1587 dated 01.08.2007. Hence the suit.

4. The suit was contested by respondents-defendants no.1 to 7 on the grounds inter alia that the estate of Resham Singh, who died in the year 2000 was inherited by plaintiff and defendants as per their share. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff along with Jasjit Singh son of Resham Singh had already sold their share to Malkiat Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 06.08.2001. Defendant-Malkiat Kaur has also sold her share to Malkiat Kaur widow of Mangal Singh vide registered sale deed dated 05.08.2002. The children of Jaswinder Kaur had also sold their share of land vide registered sale deed dated 08.12.2003. It was further pleaded that mutation no. 1587 dated 01.08.2007 has been correctly recorded. With these pleas, they pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

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

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD

6. Relief.

6. On appreciating the evidence and material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009. She was held to be joint owner in possession to the extent of 29/80 share in the suit property.

7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated, defendant no. 7-Paramjit Kaur preferred the appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed with costs. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

8. I have heard Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have meticulously gone through the paper book.

9. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the present appeal has been directed against the reversal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. Appellant-plaintiff Joginder Kaur is the mother of deceased-Amarjit Singh son of Resham Singh. She was his class one heir as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act’) and was entitled to succeed his estate. He further contended that however the learned First Appellate Court has non-suited the