SATYA PRAKASH Vs. SHEELA DEVI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal arising out of suit for cancellation of will deed executed by one Sher Gir in favour of his daughter Smt. Sheela Devi. The Suit No. 42 of 1992, has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2007 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff / appellant has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2010. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) The brief facts, as stated in the plaint, are that parties are descendant of one Phool Gir. It appears that Sher Gir, who was the son of Phool Gir, has executed a will in favour of his daughter, as he was having no son. The plaintiff / appellant claimed that during his life time the executor of the will was living with him and the property was being maintained by the family members. The appellant was looking after his welfare and he has not executed any will deed in his life time. Legally, according to Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the appellant is the legal heir and he can only inherit the property. After marriage, defendant No.1 went with her husband and she has got no concern with the property in dispute. It was in the month of March 1991, he came to know that a will was executed on 18.01.1989. Legally, Sher Gir was not having any right to execute said will, therefore, it may be treated to be a forged document. He has never visited the registration office and in case any will is there that cannot be said to be executed on his own free will. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the appellant is in possession of the property in dispute and, therefore, the defendants may be restrained from interfering in the possession of the property in question.