The admission in the pleadings is conclusive to establish the nature of the properties as ancestral coparcenary properties, and the absence of specific issues regarding the Wills did not vitiate the trial.

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Defendants No.2 and 4 have filed this appeal against judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which judgment and decree dated 31.07.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ludhiana has been upheld.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the land as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, alleging that plaintiff No.1 is widow of Sh. Gurmail Singh and plaintiff No.2 is minor daughter of Sh. Gurmail Singh. Plaintiff No.1 has no adverse interest than the plaintiff No.2, therefore, plaintiff No.2 has been represented by plaintiff No.1 as her mother/guardian and next friend. Plaintiffs further alleged that the agricultural land and house as shown in the plaint constituted Joint Hindu Family ancestral coparcenary properties in the hands of Bachan Singh.

3. Bachan Singh had two sons namely Major Singh and Gurmail Singh who had acquired interest in the joint Hindu Family ancestral coparcenary property from their birth being coparceners. 13 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land as shown in the headnote No.1(b) was the joint Hindu family coparcenary property and stood in the name of Jangir Kaur wife of Bachan Singh as a mark of respect. Bachan Singh and his sons were joint in mess, residence and workshop.

4. Gurmail Singh was serving on ships and he used to send money to his father and brother. With that money construction was raised on the house as shown in headnote 1(c) of the plaint after demolition of the old house. With the earnings of Gurmail Singh property shown in headnote 1(d) was purchased which was also thrown in the common pool of the joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The earnings of Gurmail Singh were contributed towards joint Hindu family pool. Gurmail Singh, and the plaintiffs were residing along with defendants No.1 to 4 jointly and the members of the joint family had a joint ration card in the name of Major Singh. Istridhan of the plaintiff No.1 was also lying in the house shown in headnote 1(c) of the plaint.

5. On the death of Gurmail Singh on 02.04.1994, the share in the joint Hindu family coparcenary property was inherited by the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. A Will was executed by Bachan Singh in favour of Major Singh and Gurmail Singh. Gurmail Singh had half share before his death. The plaintiffs have inherited the share of Gurmail Singh in joint Hindu family coparcenary property as shown in headnotes of the suit.

6. After the death of Gurmail Singh defendants started maltreating the plaintiffs and denied their entitlement in the properties. During the lifetime of Gurmail Singh a collusive suit was filed by Major Singh against Bachan Singh for declaration to the effect that Major Singh is owner of land measuring 71 Kanals 13 Marlas as shown in headnote No.1(a) of the plaint. In the suit, Major Singh and Bachan Singh admitted the properties to be joint Hindu family ancestral coparcenary property. The suit was filed stealthily and even Gurmail Singh was not shown to be in existence in the suit. The suit was filed on 07.04.1993 and was decreed on 11.05.1993 after admission of the entire suit by Bachan Singh. Another suit was got filed from Kiranjit Kaur wife of Major Singh against Jangir Kaur wife of Bachan Singh. That civil suit No.27 of 23.2.1993 was also decreed on 17.07.1993 after admission made by Jangir Kaur by way of admitted written statement.

7. In these aforesaid suits the fact of properties being joint Hindu family ancestral coparcenary property was admitted. Plaintiffs alleged that the aforesaid judgment and decrees are void ab initio and are not binding upon their rights. In both the aforesaid civil suits, Banchan Singh and Jangir Kaur admitted the claim of Major Singh and Kiranjit Kaur in to. Facts were concealed deliberately. Gurmail Singh was not shown being coparcener and member of joint Hindu family and his interest in the said joint Hindu family property. The cases were decided