PAWAN KUMAR Vs. SUMITRA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiffs (Sumitra and others) was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.05.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was, accordingly, dismissed by the Ist Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2014. This is how, defendant No.1 is before this Court, in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiffs, they prayed for a declaration that the adoption deed No.53 dated 31.01.1997 and Will bearing No.145 dated 03.02.1997, were null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. A decree for injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, was also prayed for. It was maintained that Rajpal, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3, was the owner in possession of the suit property. And on his demise on 02.11.2009, his estate was succeeded to by the plaintiffs, being his legal heirs and successors-in-interest. Post death of Rajpal, plaintiff No.1 moved an application to the Revenue authorities for sanctioning of the mutation in favour of the plaintiffs and, that is when, she came to know that defendant No.1 was claiming the suit property on the basis of adoption deed dated 31.01.1997 and Will dated 03.02.1997. Both the documents were purported to be illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs, being based on fraud committed by the defendants in collusion with each other upon Rajpal. Further, plaintiff No.1 never accorded her consent qua the alleged adoption of defendant No.1 by Rajpal. Thus, cause of action for filing the suit was, finally, alleged to have arisen on 18.01.2010 when the defendants refused to acknowledge the rights of the plaintiffs. Thus, the suit.

(3.) In a common written statement filed by the defendants, it was pleaded that late Rajpal, with his free will and consent, executed Will dated 03.02.1997 in favour of defendant No.1. So much so, plaintiffs were denied to be the legal heirs of late Rajpal. The suit was purported to be barred as the earlier civil suit challenging the Will was dismissed on 19.03.2002. It was claimed that the Will as well as the adoption deed were duly and validly executed.