JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - This second appeal has been filed by Kultar Singh, i.e. the plaintiff in Civil Suit no.53/28.2.96, instituted before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phagwara, that suit having been dismissed on 28.04.2001, with the first appeal filed against that judgment and decree also having been dismissed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, on 24.03.2004. The defendants in the suit, i.e. the present respondents, are all brothers and sisters of the appellant-plaintiff.

2. The bone of contention between the parties is a double storeyed house (stated in this court to be of an area of about 200 sq. yards), previously owned by the father of the parties (Mehtab Singh) who died on 07.02.1996.

Thus, vide his suit, the appellant herein had sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining/prohibiting the first defendant (respondent no.l herein) from altering any part of the suit property in any kind and form, and from alienating and transferring it in any manner, including particularly the Western side of the house, with him further seeking a declaration to the effect that the "alleged sale deed" being relied upon by the said respondent-defendant, dated 11.01.1996 (registered on 12.01.1996), claimed by the said respondent to have been executed by their father in his favour qua such Western side of the house, was a deed that was 'illegal, null and void' and therefore not affecting the rights of the plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 (respondents no.2 and 3 herein), i.e. the other two brothers of the appellant and the first respondent, who as per the appellant-plaintiff, were all equally entitled, alongwith respondent-defendant no.l, to the entire property jointly and severally, which otherwise was stated (in the plaint) to be in the joint possession of the appellant and respondent no.l, (with respondent no.2 stated to be posted in Srinagar (J&K) as a teacher, and with respondent no.3 residing in Thailand). The remaining respondents-defendants are the sisters of the other parties, to the suit, with the sisters not having been given any portion of the house by their father, who, as per the plaintiff, had executed a Will dated 22.01.1996 in favour of all his sons, as regards the suit property, leaving it in equal shares to all three of them.

3. The appellant-plaintiff further contended that the alleged sale deed dated 11/12.01.1996 was actually never executed by Mehtab Singh and was therefore the result of a fraud perpetuated, with Mehtab Singh having been impersonated by some other person (at the instance of respondent-defendant no.l).

It was further contended that actually there was no sale consideration also passed by the said respondent to Mehtab Singh, i.e. the father of the parties.

4. The appellant-plaintiff further contends that he as well as his brothers, i.e. respondents no.l to 3 herein, used to render service to Mahtab Singh, with his sisters (defendants no.4 to 7 in the suit) having been married since long, with them living with their respective families; and that their father died at the age of about 90-91 years, with him being afflicted with chronic arthritis due to which he was bed ridden for a long time before his death and was consequently unable to move.

He was also stated to be under the treatment of one Dr. K.K. Grover of Phagwara, and that in fact on 22.01.1996, in a sound disposing mind, he had executed the said Will in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and his other sons (respondent-defendants no.l to 3), qua the suit property as also other moveable properties owned by him, such as goods and cash etc., thus bequeathing to them all his property in equal shares.

As per the appellant, the sisters, i.e. respondent-defendants no.4 to 7, had no interest or right in the house and as a matter of fact, he and the first respondent-defendant were in joint possession of it even after the death of their father, with respondent no.2 (Rishi Raj Singh) posted at that time in Jammu