The importance of deciding applications for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC before disposing of appeals to ensure a fair and just decision.

Judgment

Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.

Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, has been dismissed.

2. The parties herein are being addressed as per their status in original plaint.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession as co-sharer to the extent of ½ share in the suit property, as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, on the basis of registered Will dated 13.03.1984, bearing vasika No.1181, and mutations Nos.10456 and 802 with regard to inheritance of Gurdial Singh are illegal, null and void, and also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property, in dispute, by way of sale, exchange, mortgage or otherwise on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.

3.1 The case of the plaintiff is that Gurdial Singh was the owner as co-owner of suit property. He was not having any issue. Plaintiff is the real nephew of Gurdial Singh. Plaintiff used to serve Gurdial Singh and his wife Bhupinder Kaur, defendant No.1. Due to the services rendered by plaintiff, Gurdial Singh executed a registered Will dated 13.03.1984 while in sound disposing mind bequeathing the land measuring 2 ½ acres out of his estate in favour of the plaintiff and the remaining land in favour of his wife Bhupinder Kaur, defendant No.1. Said Gurdial Singh expired on 09.02.2020. Prior to the death of Gurdial Singh also, plaintiff used to help him in cultivation of suit land. In fact, said Gurdial Singh and Bhupinder Kaur never adopted any child at any point of time. During his lifetime, Gurdial Singh always admitted the ownership and possession of Harpal Singh i.e. father of plaintiff, and always treated him as owner in possession of suit property on the basis of oral family settlement/partition. After the death of Harpal Singh, plaintiff became the owner of suit property and is residing there with his family. Plaintiff is in actual physical cultivating possession of said land. Defendant No.2-Jasjit Kaur, who claims herself the daughter of Gurdial Singh, has no right, title or interest in the estate left by deceased Gurdial Singh. In fact, she is the daughter of Bharpoor Singh son of Hardev Singh. After the death of Gurdial Singh, the defendants in connivance with each other, got the mutations No.10456 and 802 sanctioned qua inheritance of property of Gurdial Singh at the back of plaintiff. No notice was ever served upon him in that regard. The plaintiff challenged mutation No.10456 before the Collector, Ludhiana, but the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana, while exercising the power of the Collector, dismissed his case vide order dated 08.09.2000. The plaintiff came to know about the other mutation No.802 only on 14.09.2020 when he got copy of jamabandi from Halqa Patwari. It was submitted that by virtue of said Will dated 13.03.1984, the plaintiff has become co-sharer along with defendant No.1 in the estate left by Gurdial Singh and defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest in the estate left by Gurdial Singh. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit him as owner of the estate left by Gurdial Singh in his favour, but they, under the garb of said mutations, flatly refused and threatened to alienate and dispossess him from the suit property.

3.2 Upon notice, defendants appeared, filed written statement and contended that the plaintiff is not the legal and natural heir of deceased Gurdial Singh. Defendant No.2 is living in Village Lalton Kalan with her husband. Her mother Bhupinder Kaur was also residing there with them. This fact was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff but he deliberately and with ulterior motive gave a wrong address of defendant No.2. The suit is not pr