JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. At the threshold, this appeal commands the attention of this Court, the appellant–plaintiff having instituted the present Regular Second Appeal (for short ‘RSA’) impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992 of the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which confirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. The trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 11.08.1990, passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Nabha, had dismissed the suit filed by the appellant–plaintiff seeking declaratory relief. The appellant challenges the concurrent findings of the Courts below as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous.

2. As set forth in the pleadings, the appellant contends that she approached the learned Trial Court seeking a declaratory decree, founded upon the following contentions:-

“The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a declaration that she is the rightful owner of a one-half share in the land comprised in Khewat No. 93/84, Khatoni No. 132, B//7/2(6-12), 8/2(4-17), 13-8, 14(7-0), 23, 24, 23//3/2(1-9), 4(7- 7), 172(0-18), 211(1-0), 212(1-9), Gair Mumkin Abadi, measuring 88 Kanals and 13 Marlas, situated in village Roshanpur, Tehsil and District Patiala, and for a decree for joint possession thereof. The plaintiff further contends that the decree dated 27.05.1988 obtained by the defendants against Sunder Singh is illegal, void, and the outcome of collusion, and as such is not binding upon her. She also contends that mutation No. 1517, sanctioned on the basis of the said decree, is likewise illegal and ineffective, and does not divest her of her title, interest, or right to possession in the property.

Plaintiff-Prem Kaur further alleges that her father, Sunder Singh, died on 13.09.1988 leaving two daughters, Prem Kaur and Har Kaur (mother of the defendants), and no male issue. Sunder Singh had executed a registered will bequeathing all his properties to his daughters, entitling the plaintiff to a one-half share. The defendants had earlier obtained a collusive decree dated 27.05.1988 in Civil Suit No. 181 through misrepresentation, which is alleged to be illegal, void, and without jurisdiction, and mutation effected thereon is also invalid. The plaintiff claims her one-half share and joint possession of the property, seeking the decree’s nullification. Hence the suit.”

3. Following due service of summons, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed a written statement opposing the claim, wherein they articulated the following contentions comprehensively:-

“The defendants contended in the written statement that the decree relied upon by the plaintiff was valid and legally binding. They further pleaded that Sunder Singh had executed a registered will dated 23.09.1987 in their favour, thereby vesting them with rightful ownership. The defendants also asserted that they were in lawful possession of the property in dispute and that the plaintiff had no cause of action to claim any share or relief in respect of the suit property.”

4. After a careful and comprehensive examination of the pleadings and the submissions advanced by the parties, Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the matters in controversy and, for the purpose of a structured and coherent adjudication, framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the decree dated 27.5.1988 is the result of collusion? OPP.

2. Whether the decree dated 27.5.1988 is the result of misrepresntation ? OPP.

3. Whether the decree dated 27.5.1988 is without jurisdiction? OPP. 4. Whether the mutation No. 1517 dated. 23.9.1988 is illegal? OPP.

5. Whether the deceased Sunder Singh had executed a valid will in favour of the plaintiff and Smt. Har Kaur mother of defendants? OPP.

6. Whether the deceased Sunder Singh had executed a valid will dated 23.9.1987 in favour of the defendants? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the land in dispute? OPP.

8. Relief.

5. In the wake of the framing of