SATYA DEVI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit being Original Suit No.575 of 1994 with a relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the suit property and also for a declaration that the will dated 21.6.1987 be declared a null and void document.

(2.) The plaintiff had claimed that she was bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot no.81 area 3 decimal, plot no.39 area 11 1/2 decimal of village Chamav, Pargana Athgavan, District Varanasi. Along with these plots, she had also claimed that she was bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot no.1 area 28 decimal, plot no.8 area 34 1/2 decimal, plot no.21 area 11 decimal, plot no.245 area 4 decimal, plot no.248 area 5 2/3 decimal of village Paschimpur, Pargana Athgavan, District Varanasi. Further, she had claimed that she was bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot no.108 area 8 1/3 decimal, plot no.111 area 9 1/3 decimal, plot no.270 area 13 1/3 decimal of village Koiran, Pargana Athgavan, District Varanasi. She had claimed being bhumidhar with transferable rights on account of the fact that her father Sankatha Prasad, who had inherited the above plots from his father Sri Deep Narain Lal, had gifted the property to her (plaintiff) on 13.6.1969. Thereafter she had got her name mutated on account of the gift deed in March 1970 and she was in possession over the suit property. She had claimed that the defendant no.1-Ashok Kumar in collusion with the other defendants had got an unregistered will dated 21.6.1987 prepared in his favour and after the plaintiff's father died, he had moved an objection before the Consolidation Officer, after the village was notified under Sec. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1963. The defendants had contested the suit and thereafter the Trial Court after framing as many as six issues, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court on the appeal being filed by the defendant no.1-Ashish Kumar, however, allowed the appeal stating that since the plaintiff had not proved the gift deed in accordance with law, the first appeal had to be allowed. The suit was, thereafter, dismissed.

(3.) The instant Second Appeal when it was filed, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-