Mrs. Ritu Bahri J. (Oral):- Appellants-plaintiffs have come up in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2016, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rupnagar, whereby the suit filed by the appellants plaintiffs for joint possession has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, by which the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2016, has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs were seeking relief of possession on the ground that they are resident of village Barri Rallon, Tehsil & District Ropar. Bakhtaur Singh had inherited the property from his father Munshi. After the death of Bakhtaur Singh, the property in dispute was inherited by his four sons, namely, Sohan Singh, Gurmail Singh, Ajmer Singh and Swaran Singh. Gurmail Singh (since deceased) was unmarried and issueless and he had been residing with the plaintiffs during his life time. Gurmail Singh died on 02.07.1999 in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh.

3. Defendants to Will dated 10.07.1997 alleged to have been executed by Gurmail Singh in favour of the defendants and the mutation has been allegedly and wrongly entered in favour of the defendants on the basis of the said alleged forged and fabricated Will dated 10.07.1997. Gurmail Singh deceased never resided together with the defendants nor he was ever joint in mess and boarding with the defendants. There was no occasion for Gurmail Singh to execute the alleged will in favour of the defendants. Even the last rites and bhog ceremony of deceased Gurmail Singh had been performed by the plaintiffs. No notice has been issued to the plaintiffs at the time of entering of the mutation in question or any other legal heirs of deceased Gurmail Singh and ex-parte mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants at the back of the plaintiffs. An appeal filed by plaintiffs against the order dated 06.01.2009 before the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ropar, which was dismissed on 29.10.2010. Hence, the suit was filed.

4. On notice of the suit, the claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants, taking the preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit. It was averred that Gurmail Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh resident of Bari Railon, has executed a registered Will dated 10.07.1997 in favour of the defendants and the same was executed by him in sound disposing state of mind. The plaintiffs have already challenged the validity of the Will dated 10.07.1997 firstly before the revenue Courts and after having failedm they have filed the present suit.

5. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed on 08.02.2012: -

“(1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the joint possession to the extent of 1/6th share each of the land in suit? OPP.

(2) Whether the Will dated 10.07.1997 alleged to have been executed by Gurmail Singh in favour of the defendants and mutation No.691 on the basis of the same is forged and fabricated documents? OPP.

(3) Whether the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade and order dated 28.06.2011, passed by Collector, Ropar are illegal, null and void having no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

(5) Wether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD.

(6) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD.

(7) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

(8) Relief.”

6. Issues No.1 to 4 were taken up together.

7. The evidence of the plaintiff was in the form of oral testimony of plaintiffs, namely, Paramjit Singh, Surjit Kaur and one Balwinder Singh and documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and orders of the Revenue Courts. PW1 Amarjit Singh in his cross-examination deposed that he does not know as to whether any litigation was pendi