LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-105

GANESH KUMAR KASER Vs. MATHURA BAI (DEAD)

Decided On June 25, 2019
Ganesh Kumar Kaser Appellant
V/S
Mathura Bai (Dead) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment/ decree dated 20.01.1996 passed by First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (M.P.) (Now C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/1994, wherein the said court decreed the suit filed by original respondents namely Mathura Bai and Malti Bai for declaring their title in house situated at Brahminpara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Part and partial of decree of the trial court) on the basis of will dated 07.05.1979 (Ex. P/4) and on the basis of possession and again, for injunction. It is further decreed that the will Ex. D/3 dated 11.06.1984 in favour of Ganesh Kaser and Jagannath Kaser is void and not binding on the said respondents/ plaintiffs and they deliver possession of two rooms to the respondents/ plaintiffs.

(2.) The property in question is house situated at Brahminpara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) which is shown in Schedule-A of the plaint which is part and partial of decree of the trial court. As per pleading of the claimants (Mathura Bai & Malti Bai) side, the suit house was owned by Laxman Kaser and he gave the house to them because they were relatives of Late Laxman Kaser since the year 1969. For the said house, a will (Ex. P/4) was executed by Laxman Kaser on 07.05.1979 in their favour. Laxman Kaser passed on 20.06.1984. He was not fit before his admission in hospital since 29.05.1984, therefore, he was unable to execute any document. The alleged will (Ex. D/3) dated 11.06.1984 in favour of Ganesh Kaser and Jagannath Kaser is forged document which does not confer any right on them and the same is not binding on claimants/ original plaintiffs.

(3.) At the time of illness of Laxman Kaser, two rooms in the said house was given to Ganesh Kaser and Jagannath Kaser which was not vacated by them after death of Laxman Kaser that is why the suit was filed which was decreed by the trial court. Against which, both the original respondents Ganesh Kaser and Jagannath Kaser preferred the appeal.