TEK CHAND Vs. CHANDRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Chandro, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1(i) to (vi) (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute, details of which were given in her plaint, against the appellants and respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). Admittedly, the property in dispute was ownership of Smt. Kishni widow of Agdi. It was case of the plaintiff that, she being daughter of Smt. Kishni, who died on 1.7.1972, was entitled to inherit the property/land, left by her. She has further averred that the mutation, entered in the name of defendants, on the basis of Will, allegedly executed by the deceased Smt. Kishni, be declared null and void. She prayed that she be declared sole owner of the property in dispute or in the alternative, she claimed that she be declared owner to the extent of 1/3rd share thereof, alongwith defendant Nos. 4 and 5 namely Jage Ram and Sudha. It was her positive case that, Smt. Kishni had never executed any Will and the alleged Will, put up by the defendants, may be result of a fraud committed by them upon Smt. Kishni. She prayed that the Will in question be declared in-operative against her rights.

(2.) IN their written statement, defendants had admitted that Smt. Kishni was owner of the property in dispute. However, they alleged that she was not the widow of Agdi, as alleged by the plaintiff. It was further stated by them that the plaintiff Smt. Chandro was neither daughter of Smt. Kishni nor of Agdi, as alleged. They further averred that even defendant Nos. 4 and 5 were not the children of Smt. Kishni. It was stated by them that Smt. Kishni, of her own free will, had executed the Will in their favour and on account of that, they had become owner of the property in dispute.

(3.) IN the first instance, suit was decreed. However, in appeal, on a technical ground, judgment was set aside and matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision.