SABHA CHAND Vs. OMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-defendants No. 1 to 3 have come up in appeal against the judgment dated 20/11/2018 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11/01/2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rewari was allowed and a decree for declaration was passed to the effect that the plaintiff was held to be co-owner to the extent of 1/7th share in the disputed property and the Will claimed to have been executed by her father was held to be not duly proved. Vide the trial court judgment dated 11.1.2016, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the contesting respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') is that she along with defendants No. 1 to 6 was joint owner in possession of agricultural land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint to the extent of 1/7th share which came to be 11 kanals 13 marlas out of the total 81 kanals 9 marlas of land. Sh. Nand Lal, father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 6 was co-owner in joint possession to the extent of half share in the total land measuring 162 kanals 19 marlas. He died intestate in the year 1991 and after his death, the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1 to 6 became joint owners in possession in equal shares of the property left by Sh. Nand Lal being his class-I legal heirs. In the month of November 2012, the plaintiff asked defendants No. 1 to 4 to give her share in the disputed property by way of partition. However, the defendants refused to partition the property on the ground that their father had left an oral Will in their favour. Hence, the present suit was filed.

(3.) Notice of the suit was served upon the defendants. Defendants No. 4 and 7 failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 12/03/2013. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement taking the plea that the plaintiff never remained in possession of any portion of the disputed property, at any point of time. It was pleaded that Nand Lal had executed an oral will in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 4 during his lifetime on 15/05/1987 and after his death on 13/03/1991, defendants No. 1 to 4 had become owners of the same. Mutation No. 1062 dated 18/03/1991 was also sanctioned in their favour. It was denied that Nand Lal had died intestate. It was submitted that defendants No. 1 to 4 used to take care of Nand Lal and served them during his lifetime and feeling satisfied with the services rendered by defendants No. 1 to 4, the former had executed this Will in their favour. Defendants no. 5 & 6 filed a separate written statement raising the same pleas as raised by defendants no. 1 to 4.