UDMI AND ORS. Vs. BIRBAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide which the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1985 of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Narnaul, was reversed and the suit filed by Birbal and others, respondents-plaintiffs was decreed, Udmi and others, defendantsappellants preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) The facts garnered from the record are as under:- Smt. Chandori @ Chando widow of Sanwal Ram son of Jai Karan, resident of village Sareli was owner in possession of the land measuring 194 Kanals 6 Marlas (details of which, as per the jamabandi for the year 1972-73, were given in para no.1 of the plaint) situated in Village Sareli, Tehsil Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'). She executed a Will on 8.4.1978, registered on 17.5.1978 bequeathing the suit land in favour of Birbal and others, plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs). Smt. Chandori died on 11.4.1978. Plaintiffs Birbal and others claimed that they had become owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of the Will left by Smt. Chandori. Praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction the plaintiffs sought to restrain Udmi and others defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from interfering in their possession over the suit land. They also added that in case Udmi and others succeed in taking possession during the pendency of the suit, their suit be treated as 'a suit for possession'.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants-appellants no.1, 2 and 4 to 9. Defendant No.3 Tara Chand being father of plaintiffs Birbal and others admitted their claim in entirety. In the joint written statement filed by the contesting defendants, it was admitted that Smt. Chandori was owner in possession of the suit land, but they denied that she executed any Will in favour of plaintiffs Birbal and others. According to them, Smt. Chandori was an old lady, aged 70 years and was suffering from various diseases, like Asthma and Cancer, because of which, she was mentally upset and was thus, not in sound and disposing state of mind. They alleged that in case plaintiffs Birbal and others or their father had prepared a Will in collusion with the witnesses or had brought Smt. Chandori to Narnaul or to some other place on the pretext of treatment or on some other ground and obtained her thumb impressions on some papers, such document was not binding on their rights.