CR No. 2680 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2680 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.4.2011. Surjit Kaur and others .......Petitioners Vs. Darbara Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs have filed suit for joint possession. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following additional issues on 23.10.2010:- “2A. Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Poohti @ Pritam Kaur daughter of Mastan Singh resident of village Bhodipura, and wife of Sunder Singh son of Mal Singh, resident of Jalalabad, since deceased, and are legal heirs of Kapur Singh son of Mastan Singh of Bhodipura (since deceased)? OPP 2B. Whether Poohti @ Pritam Kaur was owner of 1/8th share and Kapur Singh was owner of 3/8th share of the suit land and the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the same? OPP CR No. 2680 of 2011 -2- 2C. Whether the mutation of inheritance of Poohti, No. 5428 of 23.8.88, and the mutation of inheritance of Kapur Singh, No. 5429 dated 23.8.88, are null, void and illegal and have no binding force upon the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP” Thereafter, an application was moved by the defendants for amendment of the said additional issues. Vide the impugned order dated 5.3.2011, the said application moved by the defendants, was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the legal heirs of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had taken a specific plea in the written statement that Poohti was never known as Pritam Kaur nor she was married to Sunder Singh resident of Jalalabad. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. As per the additional issue No. 2-A, framed by the trial court on 23.10.2010, the onus has been placed on the plaintiffs to establish that they are legal heirs of Poohti @ Pritam Kaur wife of Sunder Singh resident of Jalalabad. As per the additional issue No. 2-B, the onus has been placed on the plaintiffs to establish whether Poohti @ Pritam Kaur was owner of 1/8th share and Kapur Singh was owner of 3/8th share out of the suit land and the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the same. Now by way of the present application, petitioners had sought that the additional issues No. 2-A and 2-B be substituted by the following issues:- “1. Whether Pritam Kaur was second name of Poohti daughter of Mastan Singh r/o village CR No. 2680 of 2011 -3- Bhodipura? OPP 2. Whether Poohti was married to Sunder Singh son of Mastan Singh r/o Jalalabad? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Poohti daughter of Mastan Singh, and of Kapoor Singh son of Mastan Singh? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the estate of Poohti daughter of Mastan Singh, and of Kapoor Singh son of Mastan Singh? OPP The learned trial court has rightly observed that amendment now sought by the petitioner is already covered under the additional issues No. 2-A and 2-B and consequently, the additional issues No. 2-A and 2-B do not require to be reframed, as suggested by the petitioners. It is for the plaintiffs to establish that they are legal heirs of Poohti @ Pritam Kaur wife of Sunder Singh resident of Jalalabad and they are entitled to inherit her property. The petitioners will get an opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs on additional issues No. 2-A and 2-B and prove their plea that Poohti was never known as Pritam Kaur and was never married to Sunder Singh resident of Jalalabad and further that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Poohti @ Pritam Kaur. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 26, 2011 Gurpreet