VISHAL Vs. TEJBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 5/5/2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dtd. 20/4/2018 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Hukam Chand had three sons (Tejbir, Suresh and Sat Narain) and three daughters (Sukhdevi, Santosh and Ishwanti). One son, Tejbir (defendant-respondent No.1), was married to plaintiff-appellant No.2 and plaintiff-appellant No.1 is their son. According to the plaintiff-appellants the suit property is ancestral property in the hands of the defendant-respondents as the same was inherited by Hukam Chand from his father and as such the plaintiff-appellant No.1 being the only son of the defendant-respondent No.1 has become coparcener and is having pre-existing right in the suit property. It was averred that the defendant-respondents are bent upon to sell the ancestral property and have been making negotiations for the said purpose, without any kind of legal necessity. As per the plaintiff-appellants the alleged Will dtd. 11/8/2011 executed by Hukam Chand in favour of his grand children Ashwani Kumar, Ravi Dutt sons of Sat Narain, Arpan alias Happy son of Suresh Kumar is illegal, bogus, invalid, ineffective, result of fraud and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-appellants and is liable to be set aside. It was alleged that the defendant-respondents, on the basis of the Will dtd. 11/8/2011, are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff-appellants from the suit property and alienate the same. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by the legal heirs of Sat Narain son of Hukam Chand [defendant Nos.2(ii)(a), (b), (c), (d)] and Ishwanti daughter of Hukam Chand [defendant No.2(v)] while the other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement the defendant Nos.2(ii)(a), (b), (c), (d) raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action, locus standi etc. were raised. On merits it was the stand that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Hukam Chand who had died by committing suicide and left the Will dtd. 11/8/2011. It was submitted that the said Will was a registered Will and duly executed by Hukam Chand after appearing before the Sub Registrar, Karnal along with independent witnesses. Similar written statement was filed by defendant No.2(v). No replication was filed by the plaintiff-appellants.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :