JAG MOHAN Vs. MAN MOHAN DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 13379-C-2019 in RSA-4689-2019

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He had filed a suit for declaration that he was a co-sharer in the property left by his father and that Will dtd. 29/8/2008 set up by the defendants was a forged and fabricated document. The consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The trial Court decreed the suit in part. It held that the plaintiff-appellant was co-owner to the extent of l/5th share as the Will dtd. 29/8/2008 was not a legal and valid document being surrounded by suspicion. Certain consent decrees i.e. Exb. D-8, D-10 and D-ll executed by the deceased in favour of some of the defendants were, however, upheld and the property which was subject matter of the said consent decrees was excluded from the Will. Aggrieved, the plaintiff as well as some of the defendants preferred three separate appeals. The appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and has accepted the appeals of the defendants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellate Court was in error in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. TheWill dtd. 29/8/2008 was surrounded by suspicion as although the testator was a resident of Gohana, it had been registered at Ballabhgarh and it included properties transferred through the consent decrees about two decades earlier. The testator was a Lawyer and would not have made such a mistake. The Will was not proved in accordance with law as the second attesting witness had not signed the same in the presence of other attesting witness.