JAGDISH Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the will dated 3rd July, 1963, executed by Ram Saran in favour of the defendant is void. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit. The brief facts are these : The plaintiff-respondent claimed that he was the adopted son of Ram Saran deceased. The defendant, Jagdish, happened to be the daughter's son of the mother of Ram Saran. The said defendant set up a will dated 3rd July 1963, alleged to have been executed by Ram Saran in his favour and the plaintiff came to know about this will in the mutation proceedings. The plaintiff claimed that no such will was really executed and the one in question was forged and it was obtained by fraud and undue influence. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the property of Ram Saran as an adopted son. As he felt aggrieved with the alleged will and the claim which the defendant was setting up on the said basis, therefore, he filed a suit for declaration and injunction. It may be stated that the relief for injunction was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff's possession was sought to be disturbed. The defendant-appellant denied the plaintiff's allegations. He claimed that no adoption ceremony took place and that the plaintiff was not the adopted son of Ram Saran. He claimed that he was living with Ram Saran during the latter's lifetime and used to look after the latter's cultivation. He enjoyed the affection and confidence of Ram Saran and the latter executed a registered will dated 3rd July, 1963, in the former's favour. The will was said to be a genuine one. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the property. The proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code took place but ultimately the same also ended in the defendant's favour and the defendant was given possession. The plaintiff's suit for mere declaration was, therefore, said to be not maintainable. It was also claimed that the courts below had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) THE trial court held that the suit was maintainable in the civil court. However, the plaintiff was held not to have been adopted by the deceased Ram Saran and the will in question was held to be a valid and genuine one in favour of the defendant. The defendant was held to be in possession and the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction without the claim for possession was not maintainable under Section 34/41 of the Specific Relief Act. The Lower Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal by the plaintiff. It held that adoption was validly proved. The will was held to have been not proved in accordance with law. There was no compliance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and otherwise also the will was not proved beyond suspicion. The Civil Court's jurisdiction was upheld so far as the relief for declaration was concerned. However, the relief for injunction was refused to the plaintiff on the ground that it was not shown that he was in possession. The proceedings under Section 145 had ended in the defendant's favour and, therefore, there was nothing to show that the defendant had not been delivered possession. In such a situation the relief for injunction could not be granted to the plaintiff. The appeal was, therefore, partly allowed. The suit for declaration was decreed but the claim for injunction was refused. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up in the second appeal and I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri G. P. Bhargava, in some detail. Counsel made the following points :

(3.) COUNSEL next contended that the relief for declaration could not be granted by the revenue court and, therefore, the courts below were right in holding that the suit was cognizable by the civil court. It was pointed out that the lower appellate court had discussed fully the evidence bearing on the question of adoption and the finding recorded was a pure finding of fact. So far as the mode of proof was concerned it was pointed out that from the very beginning the plaintiff was contesting the validity arid the execution of the will. In fact, the suit itself was filed for obtaining a declaration to that effect and in such a situation it could not be said that he should be out of court merely because the certified copy had been filed (which he was bound to do as the plaintiff to get the relief) which copy had been admitted by the defendant. The cases relied upon by Mr. Bhargava were said not to be applicable in such a situation. It was next submitted by him that even in the case of a certified copy the requirement of Section 68 is equally applicable and for this purpose reliance was placed on Karimullah v. Gudar Koeri, AIR 1925 All 56 and Gobinda Chandra v. Pulin Behari, AIR 1927 Cal 102.