JEEWAN KUMAR Vs. RAMA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri Jeewan Kumar, impugning the judgment and decree dtd. 7/3/2018 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. By that judgment, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent-plaintiff, Ms. Rama Rani, reversed the judgment and decree dtd. 16/11/2016 of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit by declaring the plaintiff to be owner in possession of 1/10th share in the suit land and by setting aside Mutation No. 3198 which had been sanctioned in favour of the appellant. The appellant challenges the correctness of that learned appellate Court's decree and maintains that the Will dtd. 17/12/1995 (Ex.D-2) on which the mutation was sanctioned is a genuine testamentary instrument duly proved in accordance with law.

(2.) The relevant facts, in brief are that the suit land comprises 88 kanals 19 marlas fully detailed in plaint, situated in Village Dodwan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, as per jamabandi for the year 2002-2003. The protracted family history of which is material. The common ancestor, Nikka Ram, died in 1959 leaving widow Banti, two sons Ram Lubhaya and Som Prakash, and two daughters Kamla and Punni alias Shakuntla Devi. The estate devolved upon these five legal heirs in equal shares, i.e., each got 1/5th share. Smt. Punni alias Shakuntala Devi/testatrix died on 24/1/1996 leaving behind two children, namely, Rama Rani (daughter), and Naval Kishore (son) (respondents-herein). On succession the 1/5 share of Punni devolved upon her two children in equal shares and thus the respondents claimed 1/10 share. The plaintiff/respondent further pleaded that she had empowered her maternal uncle, Ram Lubhaya (defendant No.2), by a general Power of Attorney dtd. 12/6/2002 to get the inheritance mutation sanctioned. Later, on obtaining certified copies from revenue record on 30/11/2010, the plaintiff found her name and that of her brother not recorded in the ownership column, instead Mutation No.3198 dtd. 24/7/2006 recorded the suit share in the name of defendant No.1 (appellant), son of Ram Lubhaya, on the basis of a Will dtd. 17/12/1995 (Ex.D-2) allegedly executed by Punni in favour of the appellant. The plaintiff alleged that the Will was a forgery effected by the defendants in connivance with witnesses and scribe and that Mutation No.3198 was illegal. She cancelled the Power of Attorney on 3/1/2011 and filed the suit seeking declaration and injunction.

(3.) The defendants denied the allegation of forgery. Their pleaded case was that the testatrix validly executed the Will dtd. 17/12/1995 (Ex.D-2) in favour of the appellant for reasons stated in the Will, that the Will was attested by two witnesses, that mutation No.3198 was duly sanctioned and valid, and that there was no fraud. The defendants led oral evidence in support of Ex.D-2 and relied upon attesting witnesses.