****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. By this common judgment, this Court shall dispose of the two connected regular second appeals bearing Nos.752 & 878 of 1997, as they arise out of the same facts and challenge the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the learned 1st Appellate Court). The former has been preferred by appellants-defendants No.2 & 3 (real brothers of respondent No.1-plaintiff) and the latter has been preferred by appellants/defendants No.4, 6 and legal representatives of defendant No.5 against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1990 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit for joint possession filed by the plaintiff has been set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being enumerated from RSA No.752 of 1997 and the parties are being referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is that the suit land constituted the joint ancestral coparcenary property of the family, originally belonging to his late father, Sh. Baru Singh, wherein the plaintiff and his three brothers (defendants No.1 to 3) each held an equal 1/5th share by birth, which subsequently expanded to a total of an 8/35th share following the demise of their father and the natural inheritance of his portion. The plaintiff asserted that his brothers unlawfully sold parts of this family land to third-party buyers, as defendant No.1 transferred 17 Bighas 7 Biswas to defendants No.4 to 6, while defendants No.2 and 3 executed sale deeds dated 24.01.1990 and 08.02.1990 in favor of defendants No.7 and 8. The plaintiff challenged all these sale deeds as null and void while pleading that his brothers could not sell land in excess of their own individual shares, and further sought to invalidate the alleged Will set up by the defendants on the ground that under Hindu law, a father lacks the legal capacity to execute a Will disposing of ancestral coparcenary property to the exclusion of his existing sons; thus, upon the defendants' failure to admit his rightful claims despite repeated requests, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for declaration and joint possession.

4. Upon notice of the suit, only defendants No.1 to 8 appeared and filed different written statements, whereas defendants No.9 to 12 did not put in appearance in spite of service through post and were proceeded against ex parte. The plaintiff thereafter filed replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint and denying those contained in the written statements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 10 issues for adjudication.

5. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.1990. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned 1st Appellate Court by reversing the findings of the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996. Dissatisfied with the same, appellants have filed the present Regular Second Appeals.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in RSA No.752 of 1997 and for respondents No.3 and 4 in RSA No.878 of 1997 contended that the learned 1st Appellate Court had gravely erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court while misreading the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It was contended that the dispute pertained to the estate of Baru son of Karam Singh and that Baru had four sons namely Jagdish Singh, Surjit Singh, Amar Singh and Harbans Singh. It was further submitted that Baru initially executed a Will dated 12.01.1970 in favour of all his