BHIM SAIN Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI ALIAS PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 Bhim Sain is in the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 14400/ - as compensation for occupation of the shop in dispute, was decreed.

(2.) THE brief facts out of which present appeal arises is that Ghansham Dass, father of the parties, was the owner of the property in dispute. The plaintiff claims that Smt. Rattan Devi, mother of the parties, was owner of the property in dispute after the death of her husband. She executed a registered Will on 21.07.1986. The plaintiff alleged that since he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will of his mother, thus, the defendant No. 1 is in illegal possession of the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to possession and also compensation for wrongful enjoyment of possession of the shop by the said defendant.

(3.) PLAINTIFF examined PW1 Ranjit Kanwar to prove Will dated 21.07.1986. Will was presented for registration in the presence of Tarsem Lal Lambardar and Raj Kumar who are the attesting witnesses of the Will as well. PW1 Ranjit Kanwar, Sub Registrar, has deposed that the original Will Exhibit P -2 is signed by Tarsem Lal and he is will conversant with the signatures of Tarsem Lal as he used to put his signatures on various documents in his presence. PW2 is the plaintiff. PW3 Balwinder Singh is the draftsman who prepared the site plan and PW4 Jiwan Kumar is attorney of the plaintiff. In defence, Will dated 23.06.1968 executed by Ghansham Dass was produced as Exhibit D -1. DW2 Bhim Sain has deposed that Ghansham Dass died leaving behind four sons, five daughters and widow Smt. Rattan Devi. As per Will, Smt. Rattan Devi was allowed to usufruct/maintenance out of the property alone. She is limited owner and not competent to bequeath the property.