JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. This is plaintiff’s second appeal against concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in a suit for declaration filed by him. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original status.

2. The plaintiff-Mohinder Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of land to the extent of 234/994 share out of land measuring 49 Kanals 14 Marlas, half share out of land measuring 13 Kanals 19 Marlas and 21/192 share out of land measuring 2 Kanals 8 Marlas owned by his father Gurdev Singh (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘disputed land’) situated at Barnala (Punjab). A declaration was also sought that the Will dated 27.01.1999 executed by Gurdev Singh in favour of the defendants and the consequential mutation dated 28.11.2006 sanctioned on the basis of the said Will were illegal, null and void and had no bearing upon the rights of the plaintiff. The relief of joint possession was also sought along with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. One Kehar Singh was survived by his son Bishan Singh. Bishan Singh had two sons namely Gurdev Singh (plaintiff) and Darshan Singh. Gurdev Singh further had two sons namely Narinderpal Singh and Tejinder Singh (defendants No.1 and 2) whereas Darshan Singh also had two sons namely Gurwinder Singh and Harwinder Singh (defendants No.3 and 4). The case set up by the plaintiff was that the disputed land was coparcenary property since it was owned by Bishan Singh. After the death of Bishan Singh, the land devolved upon Kehar Singh and after Kehar Singh, it devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 since the brother of the plaintiff namely Darshan Singh had expired on 27.07.2006 during the lifetime of Gurdev Singh. Gurdev Singh had expired on 10.11.2006 and, therefore, the disputed land had been inherited in equal shares by the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4. It was pleaded that under the circumstances, Gurdev Singh was not competent to execute Will dated 27.01.1999 and, in any case, the Will and the consequential mutation dated 28.11.2006 had no bearing upon the rights of the plaintiff.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants. A stand taken was that the disputed land was not coparcenary property. Certain preliminary objections were also raised. A stand was taken that the defendants were owners of the disputed land in accordance with the Will dated 27.01.1999 and that the Will had been executed by Gurdev Singh in their favour since Gurdev Singh was pleased with their services.

5. In the replication, the averments made in the written statement are denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication:-

1. Whether suit property is joint Hindu family coparcenary property? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is owner to the extent of ½ share of property owned by Gurdev Singh after his death by having received as per Hindu Law? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for? OPP

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

6. Whether the mutation no.6618 dated 28.11.2006 having been sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 27.01.1999 is null and void and does not effect the rights of plaintiff? OPP

7. Whether plaintiff has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file present suit? OPD

8. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing present suit? OPD

9. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

10. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

11. Relief.

7. Parties led their respective evidence.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was held that the disputed land was not coparcenary property but was in fact the property of Gurdev Singh which he