CHAMELI AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the respondent does not wish to file any counter affidavit as in view, a pure legal question is involved in the present petition. Thus, the petition is being disposed off at this stage.

(2.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The two petitioners instituted suit No. 283 of 1996 for permanent prohibitory injunction inter alia with the allegation that their mother Smt.. Pramo was the sole Bhumidhar with transferable rights of khasra No. 305 having in area of 0.450 hectare. They were the sole heirs and after her death they have become Bhumidhars in possession for the disputed property. It was further alleged that a portion of the aforesaid plot was sold to the wife of the defendant-respondent Smt. Chameli Devi vide registered sale deed dated 16.8.1993 and after the death of the mother of the plaintiffs, the defendant-respondent, husband of Smt. Chameli, was trying to interfere in their possession and has been able to manufacture a forged will, it is further urged that in the garb of execution of the sale deed the defendant-respondent got the thumb impression of their mother over stamp paper and have manufactured a forged will on the basis of which they are seeking to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs.