GOBIND SINGH & OTHERS Vs. SMT. LACHHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, Chanan Devi against the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the suit for declaration was dismissed.

(2.) The suit was filed seeking declaration that the plaintiff was joint owner of ? share in the land bearing khewat/khatauni No.10/10, khasra No.39, 50, 78, 145 and 321/57, measuring 9B-18B, situated in Village Manakpur Devilal, ? share in the land bearing khewat/khatauni No.16/36, khasra No.98 (8B-111B0, situated in Village Ferozpur, = share in land bearing khewat/khatauni No.3/3, 4 and 5, khasra No.148, 138 min, 143 min, 149 min, 138 min, 149 min, total measuring 43B-17B and khewat/khatauni No.7/9, khasra No.137, 144, 145, 146, 150, total measuring 9B-16B, situated in Village Abdullapur and ?rd share in house situated in abadi deh of Village Manakpur Devilal, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula on the basis of the registered will dated 21.09.1987 and that the judgment and decree dated 01.06.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.119 of 1992 titled as Smt.Bachni Vs. Kapuria along with mutation No.545 of Village Manakpur Devilal, Mutation No.447 of Village Ferozpur and Mutation No.1002 of Village Abdullapur being illegal, null and void and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit land in any manner.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that Sh.Kapuria was her father and that of defendant No.2, Smt.Lachhmi and the owner of the suit property. Sh.Kapuria had married the mother of the plaintiff, Smt.Achhro and during her lifetime, Sh.Kapuria married defendant No.1, Smt.Bachni, since Achhro could not give birth to a male child, from whom, defendant No.2 was born. It was contended that the father of the plaintiff, during his lifetime, voluntarily, with free and disposing mind, had executed a Will dated 21.09.1987 and got the same registered as document No.95 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalka on 22.09.1987 vide which, he bequeathed his moveable and immoveable properties in favour of the plaintiff and defendants in equal shares, i.e., ?rd share each. It is further contended that the plaintiff is the joint owner in possession of ?rd share in the suit property. Sh.Kapuria died on 28.09.1997, i.e., about 10 years after the execution of the will. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 got executed a decree in her favour in respect of the suit property vide a collusive judgment and decree dated 01.06.1992 passed in Civil Suit No.119 of 04.04.1992 and on that basis, the mutation had been sanctioned in her favour. Accordingly, it was contended that the decree was liable to be set aside because the suit property was ancestral property of Sh.Kapuria and that he was not in a fit and disposing mind in the year 1992 and was confined to bed being more than 80 years of age and that the decree had not been registered.