JHULLA Vs. SATYANARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1 are as under:-

(2.) The suit property situated at village Bacharwar and Pendra was originally held by Arjun. He had two sons namely, Sonwa and Mitthu. The Plaintiffs are sons and daughters of Mitthu, whereas defendant No.1 is son of Sonwa. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendant No.1 stating inter-alia that in partition held between Arjun, Sonwa and Mithhu, the suit property fell in share of Arjun situated at village Bacharwar and Pendra. It was further pleaded that on 17.1.1977 vide Ex.P-5 Arjun has executed the Will in favour of Mitthu and thereby he become owner of the suit property, but defendant No.1 unauthorizedly interfering in the suit property which necessitated the filing of the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(3.) Resisting the suit, defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint stating inter-alia that no such partition has ever been taken place with respect to the property situated in village Bacharwar and Pendra. Even otherwise, the Will by Arjun in favour of Mitthu is suspicious Will and it has not been executed in accordance with law, as such, the suit be dismissed.