KAMLESH CHATURVEDI Vs. SAKSHAM ADHIKARI DWITIYA VYAVHAR NYAYADHEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had instituted a civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against defendant no.1 therein, asserting title and possession over certain agricultural land situate at village and Halka Bandholi, Tahsil Gwalior on the basis of a Will dtd. 6/8/1983 executed by late Smt. Tulsadevi in favour of the petitioner. Said Tulsadevi died in 2005 and on the basis of the Will, petitioner became owner and in possession of the suit land, on the basis of which he is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record. It has been mentioned in the plaint that defendant No.1, in the absence of petitioner, taking the benefit of old age of Tulsadevi took her to Registrar office and created a forged Will dt.7/8/1998, whereas there was no occasion for Tulsadevi to execute Will in favour of defendant No.2. On the basis of the aforesaid Will, defendant No.2 submitted application for mutation of his name in the revenue record.

(3.) Mentioning the aforesaid facts, petitioner sought relief of declaration that he is owner and in possession of the suit land on the basis of Will dt.6/8/1983 and is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue record. It be also declared that no rights of the petitioner are affected due to the forged Will dt.7/8/1998 executed by defendant No.1 and the same be declared null and void. It be also declared that defendant No.1 not entitled to get any benefit on the basis of aforesaid forged Will dt.7/8/1998 nor is entitled to get his name mutated in revenue record. A permanent injunction was also sought that petitioner shall not be dispossessed from suit land by defendant or through any other person. Defendant No.1 denied the averments of the suit mentioning the fact that earlier Will stood revoked by the later Will dtd. 7/8/1998 executed by the same testator, Tulsadevi, in his favour. Defendant No.1 further alleged that after death of Tulsadevi, defendant No.1 became the owner and in possession of all the movable and immovable property of Tulsadevi. Based on the said Will, the defendant moved application for mutation before the competent authority under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The civil suit filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 6/7/2024 by the competent civil court.