HEMLAL Vs. BINDU BAI MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal U/s.100 of C.P.C. is filed by appellants/defendants questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 15/3/2018, passed in Civil Appeal No.92-A/2017, whereby, the learned First Additional District Judge, Raipur, District ? Raipur (C.G.) dismissed the appeal filed by appellants/defendants, upholding the judgment and decree dtd. 25/9/2017, in Civil Suit No.CFCS 3-A/2012 wherein learned 7th Civil Judge Class -2, Raipur allowed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.2.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and for maintaining the land records in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 13, admeasuring 0.78 hectares, situated at village Gudguda, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a decree of permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 to 3 and further prayed for declaration will deed dtd. 25/10/2009 to be null and void, on the ground that the suit land had been purchased by the earlier President and Sarvarakar, Guru Swarup Das Saheb, through a registered sale deed dtd. 7/9/2007. It was recorded in the name of plaintiff, however, one will deed alleged to have been executed by Swaroop Das in favour of Smt. Bindu Maheshwari, W/o. Tek Ram Maheshwari dtd. 25/10/2009. It was also pleaded that Swaroop Das due to his critical condition and paralytic attack was admitted in the hospital from 24/10/2009 to 28/10/2009 at Kanwar Nursing Home, Raipur and was in comma. With the consent of the doctor, he was discharged and thereafter died in Ashram on 31/10/2009. Execution of alleged will deed is in between the period when Swaroop Das was admitted in the hospital. It was pleaded that will deed is forged and fabricated document.

(3.) Defendant No.1, beneficiary to the will and defendant No.2 and 3 claiming themselves to be legal representatives of Swaroop Das being son and daughter have filed joint reply to the plaint filed by plaintiff. Defendant No.1 supported execution of will, however, in the written statement it was further pleaded that if this Court comes to conclusion that will could not be proved, then defendant No.2 and 3 being legal representative of Swaroop Das would be entitled for property, subject matter of the suit.