INDUBALA TIRKI Vs. HAROLD KIRTI KUMAR JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 9-4-2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2002 by 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur whereby and whereurder the Plaintiffs suit has been decreed.

(2.) FACTS briefly stated are as under: The suit house situated on plot No. 20/1,Block No. 18, in Chotapara Ward of Bairan Bazar, Raipur, belongs to one Samual Clation Jacob. The said Samuel Clation Jacob was issueless. The Plaintiff is his nephew. The Defendant was staying with him since her childhood and was treated by said Samuel Clation Jacob as his adopted daughter. On 5-3-90, he executed a Will deed in favour of the Defendant bequeathing the suit house in her favour. He cancelled the Will deed dated 5-3-90 and executed another Will deed on 7-9-95 in favour of the Plaintiff. Thereafter alleged Will deed dated 5-10-95 is said to be executed in Defendant's favour by him. Meanwhile, he left Raipur and went to Kolkata where he died on 18-12-95. His dead body was brought to Raipur and the same was buried at Raipur. On the application of the Plaintiff, the said suit house stands mutated in his name in the Municipal records. In the said proceedings, the Defendant did not disclose execution of Will deed dated 5-10-95 in her favour. The Defendant applied for renewal of lease before Nazul authorities claiming herself to be legal representative of deceased Samuel Clation Jacob and got lease renewed in her favour. The Plaintiff issued an eviction notice to the Defendant who according to the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit house as licensee. The Defendant by sending her reply to the notice denied the right as claimed by the Plaintiff and stated that the said Will has been cancelled subsequently by deceased Samuel Clation Jacob and executed the last Will dated 5-10-95 in her favour.

(3.) THE trial Court on appreciation of pleadings of the parties, evidence led oral and documentary, recorded a finding that the Plaintiff got ownership of the suit house in pursuance of Will deed dated 7-9-95; Defendant failed to prove her title over the suit property; the Will dated 5-10-95 is highly suspicious and does not confer any title to Defendant; and decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. Hence this appeal.