JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1990 passed in Civil Appeal No.77 of 1988 titled as Sampuran Singh and another v. Bachni whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1988 passed in Civil Suit No.431 of 1985 titled Sampuran Singh and others v. Bachni thereby dismissing the suit had been upheld.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original nomenclature as given in the suit.

3. The brief matrix of the case is that the aforementioned suit had been filed by the plaintiffs on the averments that Mihan Singh @ Mehma Singh who was real brother of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 was co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share in the agricultural land detailed out in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter to be mentioned as the "disputed land"). In June 1970, the joint properties of the plaintiffs Nos.1, 2 and Mihan Singh were partitioned by virtue of a family settlement and thereby, the disputed land had fallen to the share of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 wherein they constructed a house and the house which has been shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint had fallen to the share of Mihan Singh (for short "disputed house"). Mihan Singh was unmarried and issueless. The plaintiff No.3 Labh Singh who was son of plaintiff No.1 used to serve Mihan Singh during his life time and being pleased with the services so rendered by the plaintiff Labh Singh, Mihan Singh had executed a Will in his favour on 20.05.1984 with sound disposition of mind. The said Will had been duly attested by the respectables of the village. Sh. Mihan Singh died on 27.12.1984 and after his death, in view of the Will dated 20.05.1984, plaintiff No.3 became owner in possession of the disputed house and he was already in possession of the same due to the fact that Mihan Singh used to reside with him. It was pleaded that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had already become co-owners of the disputed land in view of family settlement, however, even otherwise after the death of Sh. Mihan Singh, they being the only class-1 legal heirs of the deceased had inherited to his estate and had become co-owners of the same after his death.

4. It was further pleaded that Sukh Ram son of Narain Dass resident of Village Baroti District Ropar who was husband of the defendant was having friendly relations with Sh. Mihan Singh and due to that the defendant used to visit Mihan Singh during his life time. It was alleged that the defendant was not wife of Mihan Singh and was rather having three children from the loins of Sukh Ram. However, in order to grab the property of Mihan Singh and to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiffs, she had started claiming herself to be the wife of Mihan Singh. After his death, she in connivance with revenue authorities had even got the mutation of inheritance of Mihan Singh entered in her favour and on the basis of the same, she had started claiming ownership over the disputed properties. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for passing a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were joint owners in possession of the disputed land on the basis of family settlement arrived at between Sh. Mihan Singh and themselves in June 1970 and further that the plaintiff No.3 was owner in possession of the house in dispute on the basis of the Will executed by Mihan Singh in his favour.

5. The defendant appeared in response to the notice and file