PANNALAL SWARNKAR Vs. RAJKUMAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.08-A/2005 by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Durg. By the said judgment, the judgment & decree dated 31.03.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.75- A/2001 by the Eighth Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg was affirmed.

(2.) In the instant appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant. The case of the plaintiff was that the respondent and plaintiff are real brother. In the year 1990, the father of the plaintiff namely Gendlal had given a part of his house by way of partition to the son plaintiff and thereafter, he is in possession of house till date. Subsequently, the respondent, who is brother, has disconnected the electricity and had installed a different meter. It was pleaded that the defendant/ respondent also got his name mutated in respect of house on the ground that the house has been bequeathed to him by his father. Further pleaded with respect to the mutation of the name, the objection though was raised before the municipal and other revenue authorities i.e. Nazul but the name of the respondent was recorded. The plaintiff/appellant pleaded that during the life-time of his father, the plaintiff /appellant used to look after him and after his death the entire rituals were also carried out by him. Alleging that the respondent always take the shelter of fabricated document and lies get a Will prepared by fraud on 14.01.1994 by his father Gendlal in favour of Rajkumar Soni, therefore, in order to set side the Will, the civil suit was filed.

(3.) The respondent denied the averments of the plaint and stated that late father Gendlal have never executed any partition. It was further stated that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit house. Further pleaded that the father, Gendlal Soni, has executed a registered Will on 14.01.1994 and on the basis of the Will, after his death, the mutation of the name in respect of the house was recorded. Likewise in Nazul records, name of the respondent is recorded. Rest of the averments were denied.