ORDER

1. In 2011, the plaintiff/respondent No.2 had instituted a Suit for declaration of the will dated 17th May, 1995, as to be bad in the eyes of law, as well asthe consequential execution of the sale deed dated 8th January, 2010, as to be illegal, the relief as sought by the plaintiff/respondent No.2 in Suit was as under :-

^^v& ;g fd fMdzh cgd okfnuh fo:} izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; dh ikfjr dh tk; fd xzke&lhrkiqj] xkSykikj] rglhy&gY}kuh] ftyk&uSuhrky ds [ksr uEcjku 18 feu jdcbZ 0-20 gsDVs0] [ksr ua0&19 feu jdcbZ&0-152 gsDVs0] [ksr ua0&20 feu jdcbZ 117 gsDVs0] [ksr la&215 feu jdcbZ-185 gsDVs0] dqy jdcbZ 0-483 gsDVs0 ds ckcr fd;k x;k dfFkr clh;rukek tks Jherh gseUrh nsch ds i{k esa fnuakd & 17&05&1995 dks fd;k x;k gS] dwVjfpr gksus ls fujLr fd;k tk;A

c&;g fd QthZ olh;rukek fnukad 17&05&1995 ds vk/kkj ij Jherh gseUrh nsch }kjk izfroknh la0&5 ds i{k esa fd;k x;k mijksDr fodz; i= fnukad 08&01&2010 dkuwu vekU; vkSj 'kwU; gSA

l& [kpkZ eqdnek okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tk;A

n& vU; vuqrks"k tks U;k; fgr esa vko';d gks] okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA^^

2. Principally, when the Suit was instituted, the present petitioners were defendants to the Suit. After the exchange of the pleadi