SATBIR SINGH & ANR Vs. BIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Mewat in Civil Appeal No.57 of 2014 dated 13.1.2015, vide which the original Judgment & Decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mewat in Civil Suit No.18 of 2010 dated 16.8.2014 against the present Appellants/Defendants was set aside.

(2.) The Suit had been filed by the Respondent Smt. Bimla who happens to be the daughter of deceased Bhagwani Devi, who was the owner and in possession of 2/9th share in the suit land situated within the revenue estate of Tauru, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat more fully described in Para No.1 of the Plaint. Now according to the Plaintiff/Respondent, her mother transferred 1/9th share of her aforesaid share in the suit land in favour of her other daughter Smt. Ombati and left the remaining 1/9th share for the Plaintiff. It may be mentioned that the specific pleadings of Plaintiff in this regard are noted in Para No. 2 of the original Plaint, which are set out below -

(3.) Thereafter according to the Plaintiff/Respondent, taking advantage of the old age of her mother Smt. Bhagwani Devi, the Appellants/Defendants on 20.6.2007 took her for Eye Check-up and they secretly obtained her thumb impressions on some blank papers, and thereafter by playing fraud and cheating, fabricated a false and forged Will, bearing Vasika No.37 dated 20.6.2007 in respect of 1/9th share of Smt. Bhagwani Devi in their favour. It is noteworthy that in the relevant Para No.3 of the Plaint, the Respondent/Plaintiff did not make any hint as to how her mother Smt. Bhagwani Devi was acquainted with the Defendant/Appellants, or whether there was any relationship between her and the Defendants. On the other hand in the same Paragraph thereafter, according to the Plaintiff/Respondent, her mother Bhagwani Devi actually executed a registered Will, bearing Vasika No.30/3 dated 23.4.2008 in her favour, and in which she clearly stated that 'the same is her first and last Will.' Therefore according to the Plaintiff, it becomes clear that her mother never executed the earlier Will dated 20.6.2007, which was not even in her knowledge at the time of execution and registration of her Will dated 23.4.2008 on account of which, the impugned Will relied upon by the Appellants/Defendants is liable to be set aside, cancelled, being a false and forged document.