DEVKARAN Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against dismissal of plaintiff's suit by Courts below in concurrent manner.

(2.) Short facts leading to this appeal are that the suit property was owned and possessed by Balmukund, who happened to be brother of Keshav Ram, the original plaintiff. Basantibai, the original defendant No.1, got her name mutated on the suit property, after the death of Balmukund in a road accident on 19.12.1984, on the strength of will dated 03.12.1984 (Ex.D/1) and further sold it to defendants No.2 to 4 vide registered sale-deed dated 15.01.1985. Plaintiff challenged the will as forged one and prayed for declaration of title and restoration of possession on account of succession by natural inheritance.

(3.) Learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence, held that the will was duly executed by Balmukund in favour of Basantibai. He further found that Keshav Ram was given in adoption by his father to Kalu Ram, and therefore, he did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit property. Accordingly, suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1996. It is not out of place to mention here that original plaintiff Keshav Ram died during the trial and his widow Sitabai and his son, namely, Devkaran, were brought on record. Sitabai also died during the trial and her name was deleted.