SHEEL KUMARI Vs. SATYAWART

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak whereby the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2011 passed by the then learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Rohtak vide which the suit of the plaintiffsappellants has been decreed partly, has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS -appellants as well as their mother filed a suit for declaration alleging that plaintiffs -appellants Nos. 1 and 2 are daughters and Smt. Omwati is mother of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and wife of late Rajinder Pal. After the death birth of plaintiff -appellants No. 1 and 2, Rajinder Pal started harassing Smt. Omwati under the influence of defendant -respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as a result of which, she was forced to live separately from him. Thereafter, defendant -respondent Nos. 1 and 2 secretly got an adoption deed executed illegally and fraudulently by Rajinder Pal in favour of defendant -respondent No. 1 -Satywart (son of defendant Nos. 2 and 3) on 01.06.1991. Rajinder Pal died on 12.11.2006 and thereafter defendants -respondents started harassing and obstructing the plaintiffs -appellants from using the property of Rajinder Pal, though the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the same. The execution of the will dated 01.06.1991 was challenged on the ground that no consent was taken from plaintiff No. 3 i.e Smt. Omwati by Rajinder Pal for adoption of defendant No. 1 i.e Satyawart. The mandatory ceremonies for adoption were not followed and there was no reason to disinherit the two living daughters i.e present appellants. The will was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 01.06.1991 whereby Rajinder Pal gave all his property to defendant No. 1. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement taken the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. However, the relationship of the plaintiffs with Rajinder Pal was admitted. It was denied that plaintiff No. 3 i.e Smt. Omwati was forced to live separately from Rajinder Pal and thereafter denied that Rajinder Pal due to some undue influence adopted defendant No. 1. The adoption deed was registered document. It has been alleged that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 i.e present appellants were residing with their mother and they never visited their father Rajinder Pal who during his life time executed a will dated 01.06.1991 in favour of defendant No. 1 regarding all his movable or immovable properties. Plaintiff No. 3 was living separately from Rajinder Pal and had deserted him, later -on divorce was obtained by her.

(3.) THEREAFTER , from the pleading of the parties, the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 framed the following issues: -