SHIV RAM Vs. DURGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants's appeal against the judgment and decree rendered by Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 5th February, 1991, vide which judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside; thus, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) FACTS that constrained the plaintiff-respondents to file suit for possession require to be briefly enumerated. One Joti Ram, stated to be husband of plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Durga Devi, was earlier married to one Smt. Perma Devi. No issue was, however, born put of this wedlock. For the reason that Smt. Perma Devi could not bear any child or otherwise, she is stated to have become a lady of unbalanced mind and left the matrimonial home long back to an unknown destination. After she had so left the house, she was not heard by those who would have naturally known about her. Smt. Durga Devi, plaintiff No. 1, then came into matrimonial alliance with the aforesaid Joti Ram. Out of this marriage, however, four children were born; two out of them predeceased Joti Ram whereas two others who are daughters, i. e. plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, are stated to be still living with plaintiff No. 1. Joti Ram during his life time had mortgaged some land out of the total suit land owned and possessed by him, as he was unable to manage the same on account of his old age. Some of the mortgagees were the present defendant-appellants. Joti Ram died on 20th November, 1978. His estate devolved upon the plaintiffs, evidenced through mutation of inheritance sanctioned by revenue officials. When, however, the mutation was to be attested, the defendants are stated to have produced before the revenue officer a will dated 20th October, 1978. The said will is alleged to have been executed by Joti Ram, by which entire property was bequeathed by him to the defendants, whereas all the plaintiffs, i. e. the wife and two daughters were totally disinherited. On the basis of the will, the defendants are stated to have first reversed the sanction of mutation that was sanctioned by the revenue officials and then by getting the same sanctioned in their own favour, forcibly dispossessed the plaintffs. Styling, thus, the possession of the defendants as wholly illegal and that of a tresspasser and the will to be an outright act of concoction and forgery, the present suit for possession was brought by the plaintiffs. The defendants contested the suit on a variety of grounds which will be reflected from the issues that came to be framed by the trial court and are reproduced as follows :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant appellants strenuously urged that the first appellate court has clearly erred while accepting the oral and documentary evidence with regard to relationship of the plaintiffs with Joti Ram deceased. Not only the said evidence is in sharp contrast to the pleadings but the same is contradictory inter se. No reliance could possibly be placed upon such Self-conflicting evidence. In so far as oral evidence so as to prove relationship of Joti Ram with the plaintiffs is concerned, the same is not proved through conduct as per requirements of section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, contends the counsel.