Property acquired by a tenant under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, through the payment of compensation, constitutes self-acquired property and is not ancestral co-parcenary property; such property can be bequeathed via a valid testament by the owner.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present regular second appeal has been preferred by unsuccessful appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 10.12.1986, passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda whereby their suit for declaration and joint possession was dismissed as well as by judgment and decree dated 23.08.1988, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby first appeal preferred by appellants/plaintiffs was also dismissed.

In their suit for declaration and joint possession, appellants/plaintiffs had claimed that they are owners to the extent of 1/8th share of land measuring 252 kanals duly described in the plaint and accordingly had sought possession of the same. It was asserted that Dharam Singh husband of appellant/plaintiff No.1-Surjit Kaur and father of appellants/plaintiffs No.2 and 3, Jasbir Kaur and Bant Kaur respectively constituted joint Hindu family with his father Billu Singh and respondents/defendants No.1 and 2. The suit land in the hands of Billu Singh was joint Hindu family and co-parcenary property in which Dharam Singh had 1/4th share by birth. That Dharam Singh died 9 years ago leaving appellants/plaintiffs as his only legal heirs, however, respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 had illegally taken possession of suit property on the basis of registered Will dated 03.07.1974 allegedly executed in their favour by Billu Singh. The Will was, however, stated to be forged and fabricated and respondents/defendants No.3 to 20 were impleaded being co-sharers mortgagees in the joint khata. Accordingly, suit for declaration and possession was preferred.

Respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit and took number of preliminary objections regarding maintainability etc. They had specifically denied that suit land was ancestral or joint Hindu family property in the hands of Billu Singh and that Dharam Singh had 1/4th share in it by birth. They also asserted that Dharam Singh and Billu Singh never constituted joint Hindu family and Billu Singh being exclusive owner in possession of land had executed valid registered Will on 26.06.1974 in their favour and respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 came in possession of the suit land being owners on the basis of Will. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

Following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties :-

1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of 1/8 share of the suit land? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

3) Whether the present suit is within limitation? OPD

4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD

5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6) Whether the suit not properly valued for purposes of jurisdiction and court fee? OPD

7) Whether Billu Singh deceased executed a valid will on 26.06.1974 in favour of defendants 1 and 2? OPD

8) Relief.

Initially suit was dismissed on the preliminary issue of limitation vide judgment and decree dated 18.02.1983, however, learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.03.1984 had remanded the case back for fresh decision on merits.

Following additional issues were framed as under :-

1) Whether plaintiffs, Dharam Singh and defendants No.1 and 2 formed a Joint Hindu Family? OPP

2) Whether the property in dispute is Joint Hindu Family property that is coparcenary property? OPP

3) Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 are governed by customary law, if so its effect? OPD

Additional issue No.1 was decided against appellants/plaintiffs and additional issues No.2 and 3 were decided in favour of respondents/defendants. Issue No.1 was decided against appellants/plaintiffs, issues No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were decided against respondents/defendants and issue No.7 was decided in favour of respondents/defendants. Accordingly, suit was dismissed by learned Court of first instance. Findings of learned Court of first instance were affirmed by learned First Appellate Court.

In the present c