RAVI DUTT Vs. HIRDE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff who is none other than the father of the defendant. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. He also filed an application before the First Appellate Court for amendment of the plaint to convert the prayer for permanent injunction into one for recovery of possession. The said application moved by the plaintiff was allowed. The First Appellate Court having found that the Will set up by the defendant was not established and it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances chose to allow the prayer for recovery of possession sought for by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant has come out with the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit property measuring 27 kanals and 11 marlas. It was originally owned by the plaintiff and Janki Devi in equal shares. As Janki Devi died issueless intestate, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the entire property as Janki Devi was none other than his brothers wife. The Will alleged to have been executed by Janki Devi in favour of the defendant was a bogus, fictitious and forged document, it was contended.

(3.) The defendant contended in the written statement that he has got 1/2 share in the suit property as per the Will dated 5.10.1978 executed by Janki Devi. It was contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the 1/2 share of Janki Devi. Claiming that he was the co-sharer of the suit property, he sought for dismissal of the suit.