SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shrinath Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

(2.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") arising out of judgment and decree dtd. 23/12/2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Kaushambi in Civil Appeal No.01 of 2021, by which the appeal preferred by defendant- respondent has been allowed and judgment and decree dtd. 14/12/2021 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaushambi in Original Suit No.143 of 2010 has been set aside.

(3.) The facts in brief, as disclosed by the parties in the pleading are that plaintiff-appellants and defendant-respondent are the sons of late Kedar Nath. Kedar Nath was initially married to the mother of defendant Munna Lal. After her death, late Kedar Nath married the mother of plaintiffs. According to the plaint allegation, late Kedar Nath had executed a registered Will dtd. 8/9/1997 in favour of plaintiffs-appellants for Arazi No.45. Late Kedar Nath had got purchased Arazi No.398 measuring 17 biswa in favour of defendant, so that no dispute may arise between his sons. However, the defendant sold the said Arazi No.398 during life time of Kedar Nath. Kedar Nath died on 3/12/2009 and thereafter defendant started claiming half of the share in the property, which led to filing of Original Suit No.143 of 2010 by the plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession over the property. The plaintiffs have relied upon the Will executed by their father on 8/9/1997. The said suit was contested by the defendant Munna Lal by filing written statement and stated that the Will dtd. 8/9/1997 was forged and fabricated and therefore, he was entitled to half of the share in the property.