Radhi his mother.
Baikunthi Devi challenged the order dt.
The said appeal was allowed by order dated 7.6.1983 and the Judgment and Decree dated 31.8.1982 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib was set aside.
129 Khatoni No.
Regarding other portion of the property, the appellate companyrt was of the view that the same was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as claim regarding the said property number having been made in the earlier suit, the appellant was barred from claiming the same in the second suit.
Baikunthi Devi died and her legal heirs filed an application for substitution in RSA which was allowed.
Since both these appeals involve similar questions of law and facts, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this companymon judgment and order.
Radhi was upheld and the suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.1976.
The Sub Judge, 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib by his judgment and order dated 31.8.1982 allowed the suit of the appellant by holding that he was entitled for decree for possession of the land which had been wrongly described as Khasra No.
Suit of the plaintiff was further decreed against the defendants through a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession as companysharer of land measuring 9 Kanals 17 Marlas in which plaintiff has share as companysharer in the entire land as fully detailed in Part C of the plaint.
Radhi died on 13.09.1968 and before her death, she executed a registered Will dated 30.04.1968 in favour of her grandson Tilak Raj, the appellant herein.
Thereupon, the appellant filed review petition before the High Court but the same was also dismissed by the High Court.
Datta Ram was married to Smt.
The said land is measuring about 13 Kanals and 10 Marlas.
The appellant filed Civil Suit No.
By the said judgment and order, possession of land measuring 13 Kanals 10 Marlas was also decreed in favour of appellant as mentioned in para B of the plaint in which the appellant has been held to have share as companysharers in the land companyprised of Khewat No.
Baikunthi on the basis of Will dated 16.01.1968.
26R/52 was number mentioned in the earlier suit and the remedy available to the respondent appellant herein was to move an appropriate application under section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for short CPC .
Baikunthi on the basis of the Will dated 16.01.1968 did number find favour and was rejected.
Baikunthi Devi his widow and Smt.
2315/83 dated 18.8.2006, the present appeals were filed by the appellant.
149 of 1979 for a declaration that he is owner in possession as companysharer of the two parcels of land, i.e. the land of Datta Ram which was returned by the FCI to Smt.
Even if Smt.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed RSA in the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
Due to such a mistake, the decree companyld number be executed and possession of the decreetal land companyld number be delivered to the appellant.
The plea raised by Smt.
In order to establish his claim qua half share of the property bequeathed by Will in his favour by his grandmother Smt.
Baikunthi Devi for a decree for possession of land measuring 7 K 12 Marlas on the ground that the land measuring 15K 5 Marlas situated in Village Maujowal was owned and possessed by Datta Ram and he died intestate on 23.2.1968 leaving behind Smt.
4047.06 was paid to the FCI.
Page 1 of 15 The relevant facts for disposal of the companytroversy are as under One Thakru, the companymon ancestor of the parties, had wife Smt.
Later on this land was found to be surplus and number utilized for the FCI under the general scheme and companysequently the land was to be returned to the original owner from whom it was acquired.
31.8.1982 of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib before the Court of Additional District Judge by filing a Civil Appeal.
was 26R/52.
The appellate companyrt was of the view Page 4 of 15 that property bearing Khasra No.
25R/52 has been wrongly mentioned in the decree whereas the companyrect Khasra No.
After his death, a part of that land was re conveyed in view of the fact that the FCI found that the said acquired land was surplus.
During its execution it was found that Khasra No.
1 since deceased .
Radhi, the appellant herein filed a civil suit number 306 of 1969 against Smt.
Appeal was thereafter taken up for hearing.
The plea of the appellant based on registered Will dated 30.04.1968 executed by his grandmother Smt.
However, the land left by Datta Ram was mutated in favour of Smt.
Baikunthi Devi, the respondent No.
Baikunthi Devi and his mother Smt.
Radhi and two sons, namely, Mange Ram and Datta Ram.
In that civil suit, Smt.
During the pendency of RSA Smt.
Baikunthi Devi Page 3 of 15 and the land which was wrongly described in suit number 306/1969.
After companypletion of hearing, the High Court by Judgment and Order dated 18.8.2006 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
Accordingly, this land was reverted back to Datta Ram and a sum of Rs.
Baikunthi set up a Will purporting to have Page 2 of 15 been executed by her husband in her favour on 16.01.1968.
Mange Ram was the father of Tilak Raj the appellant in both the appeals.
A petition for execution of the decree was filed by the appellant.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the Judgments and Orders passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No.
Besides certain other land owned by Datta Ram was acquired by the Fertilizer Corporation of India for short FCI during his life time.
25R/52 measuring 5 K 8 Marlas as mentioned in para A of the plaint, in which he has been held to have share as companysharer in the entire land against the defendants.
69 C/2006 dated 28.2.2007 and RSA No.
The property in suit was owned by and was in the possession of Datta Ram, who died on 23.02.1968, leaving his wife Smt.
