Judgment

Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.

Shortly put, facts of the case are that plaintiff Chanan Singh son of Lal Singh, resident of village Machaki Mal Singh, Tehsil & District Faridkot had filed a suit for possession of land measuring 158 kanals 14 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Machaki Mal Singh against defendants Chand Singh, Kulwant Singh, Jabarjang Singh, residents of village Kameana.

2. As per the version of the plaintiff, he and his real brother Hakam Singh constituted a joint Hindu family and they owned 331 kanals 11 marlas of land, which had nature of ancestral and joint Hindu family property; the suit land was in the possession of Hakam Singh as per his share; Hakam Singh died issueless and as a widower, as such the plaintiff succeeded him by way of survivorship.

3. Inter alia, the plaintiff alleged that Hakam Singh was physically and mentally weak having poor understanding; he was an illiterate and a rustic villager and he had suffered attack of paralysis about 6-7 years prior to his death. It was further pleaded that Surjit Singh and his wife Gurdeep Kaur are shrewd and resourceful persons, as such Surjit Singh started cultivating the land of Hakam Singh 6-7 years earlier as a tenant and slowly he tried to become owner of the land by suppressing Hakam Singh.

4. According to the plaintiff, when he consulted the revenue record, he came to know that Surjit Singh had got the land mutated in the name of his sons i.e. the defendants on the basis of fake decree dated 14.5.1984. The plaintiff sought setting aside of that decree on various grounds i.e. the defendants had put forward their claim on the basis of adverse possession but it could not be so, as some of the defendants were of very young age, as such incapable of exercising adverse possession; at the time of the filing of the suit Kulwant Singh was aged about 5 years and Jabarjang Singh 3 years only; in the revenue record, the defendants were shown to be in possession only 5-6 years back and that too as tenants; in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84 their possession was recorded as tenants on batai, therefore there was no question of their acquiring a title in the property by way of adverse possession; the defendants, who are plaintiffs in the suit filed by them against Hakam Singh had not impleaded the present plaintiff Chanan Singh, who was a co-owner of the land; as a matter of fact, the consent was obtained from Hakam Singh by exercising undue influence upon him by parents of the defendants inasmuch as Hakam Singh was not allowed to take any advise from any independent person and the suit had been filed by defendants through counsel Sh. M.S. Romana, Advocate, whereas deceased Hakam Singh was represented by Sh. R.S. Romana, Advocate son of Sh. M.S. Romana, Advocate and they were both joint in practice; a written statement was got thumb marked from Hakam Singh without allowing him to know as to what had been written therein; the father of the defendants had got the mutation sanctioned clandestinely in favour of defendants in order to create record because Hakam Singh was not related to defendants in any manner; the defendants had no pre-existing right in the suit property, as such they could not acquire title therein by getting a fake and fictitious decree.

5. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that in the plaint of the suit filed by the defendants, there was a reference of the Will, though Hak