JAI SINGH Vs. BHIM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak whereby on first appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant, judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, has been set aside and as a consequence thereof suit of the plaintiff dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that one Thandi Ram was the owner of the plot in dispute which he had purchased vide sale deed dated 25.10.1962. Thandi Ram died in the year 1965 leaving behind sons, namely, Naurang, Bhim Singh, Daryao Singh and Sube Singh. Naurang died on 11.11.1966 leaving behind son Jai Singh and widow Dhanpati (plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 respectively). Plaintiffs being the son of widow of deceased son of Thandi Ram, filed suit for possession by way of partition in regard to the plot in dispute claiming to be the owners of 1/4th share. They contended that the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in possession of the plot and there being dispute in regard to the use of the plot between the plaintiffs and the defendants, they are entitled to get the same settled by getting the plot partitioned. Upon notice of the suit, defendants 2 and 3 contested the claim of plaintiffs and inter-alia pleaded that Thandi Ram used to reside with defendant No. 2, namely, Daryao Singh and as a result of services rendered by him, Thandi Ram executed Will dated 25.9.1963 in his favour. Defendants contended that the plaintiffs have no right title or interest in the plot in dispute. Defendant No. 1 namely, Bhim Singh son of Thandi Ram admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and submitted that the plot in dispute be partitioned in accordance with the shares of the parties. Plaintiffs, in their replication, reiterated the stand taken by them in the plaint and denied the execution of the Will in favour of Daryao Singh, defendant No. 2.

(3.) TRIAL Court, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties to the suit, decided the issue in regard to execution of Will dated 25.9.1963 against the defendants and held the same to be a suspicious document. Resultantly, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 2nd defendant being aggrieved of the decree of the trial Court preferred first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rohtak. Vide impugned judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak set aside the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 1-A and held the Will to be a valid document. As a consequence thereof, suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs.