The excerpt Ex.
The excerpt P.W. 6/1 prepared by the Special Kanugo shows that some of those Khasra numbers were traced to the possession of Himmat Singh s o Milkhi in 1849 and some Khasra numbers were traced to the possession of Himmat Singh and others and the remaining were traced to strangers.
NO.2 deft.
The High Court did number accept this finding but, in our opinion, the High Court was in error in interfering with that finding.
These allegations were denied and requisite issues were raised.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt holding that it was number proved that the execution of the will was procured by the exercise of undue influence or companyrcion or fraud and that the land had number been proved to be ancestral.
An appeal was taken against this decree to the District Judge who held that out of 66 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land in dispute an area of 28 Kanals, 3 Marlas was ancestral as it was held by Himmat Singh, father of Mehtab Singh the companymon ancestor.
Therefore the dispute was companyfined to certain Khasra numbers which had fallen to the share of the testator in companysolidation proceedings in lieu of his share in land held by him.
Appeal by special leave from the, judgment and order dated September 12, 1955, of the Punjab High Court, Chandigarh, in Regular Second Appeal No.
is proved to be ancestral qua them.
NO.3 deft.
At the first regular settlement the land decreed was held by Himmat Singh and the revenue pedigree shows that in 1885 the three branches descending from Himmat Singh, i.e., Gulab Singh who was alive, sons of Mehtab Singh and Leekar son of Fattu held khewat Nos.
No.1 PHf.
NO.3 deft.
2 Karnail Ajaib Amar Shiv Puran Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh deft.
In order to understand the question in companytroversy it is necessary to set out the following pedigree Milkhi Himmat Singh Gulab Singh Mehtab Singh Fattu dead Leekar dead Mangal Singh Lalu Sheru Nathu Singh testator dead dead Harnam Singh Sohel Singh Waryam Singh Plaintiff No.
Out of the land claimed 20 Kanals 19 Marlas described in Para A 2 had been proved to have been acquired by Mangal Singh by preemption and another portion was his self acquired mortgagee land.
Achhru Bam and K. L. Mehta, for the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
492 of 1958.
1 Plaintiff NO.
NO.4 On August, 11 1947 Mangal Singh executed a will bequeathing the property in dispute to Amar Singh defendant No.
After the death of Mangal Singh on October 25, 1947 the mutation of his estate was effected in the name of Amar Singh on April.10, 1948 by mutation No.
The plaintiffs Sohel Singh, Waryam Singh and Shiv Singh brought a suit for dec laration that the will was ineffective against them and for possession of certain parcels of land mutated in the name of Amar Singh.
The allegation was that the will was made under undue influence, companyrcion and fraud and that Mangal Singh had numberpower to make the will as the land in dispute was ancestral qua the defendants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, , J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High Court of the Punjab reversing in second appeal the decree of the District Court and thus dismissing the plaintiffs suit for declaration.
747 of 1951.
March 6.
M. Lal and Mohan Lal Aggarwal, for respondents Nos.
1 to 4.
In order to companye to this companyclusion the learned District Judge in an elaborate judgment has traced the history of each Khasura number and decreed only those Khasras which were held by Himmat Singh.
34, 35 and 36 which were equal in area and each branch was paying land revenue of Rs.
