LEELA Vs. DRUMTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi, H. P. dated 31/05/1993. Smt. Drumti Devi plaintiff and defendant Leela alias Bali Devi, appellant herein, are the daughters of Shri Dilu son of Shri Rattan of village Baniur, Tehsil Chachiot of District Mandi. Shri Dilu died on 3rd of Bhadon 2042 Bk. after prolonged illness. Defendant Leela alias Bali Devi claims the entire property left by Shri Dilu on the basis of a registered Will executed by Shri Dilu in her favour on 25/03/1985. Plaintiff Drumti filed a suit for declaration that the Will executed by Shri Dilu in favour of defendant No. 1 is invalid, null and void and not binding on the interests of the Plaintiff on the properties left by Shri Dilu as detailed in para 1 of the plaint with consequential relief restraining the defendant Smt. Leela alias Bali Devi from forcibly dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit land or otherwise, changing the nature and transferring the suit land.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that both she and her sister, defendant No. 1, are entitled to inherit and succeed to the estate left by Shri Dilu in village Kut and Surah as described in para 1 of the plaint. The Will set up by defendant No. 1 is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The Will is challenged on the grounds : (a) Dilu was an old man of 75 years of age suffering from chronic disease, bed ridden and unable to move about one year prior to his death; (b) The suit land was being looked after and cultivated jointly by the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the Will have been created by defendant No. 1 and her husband in collusion with the scribe and marginal witnesses as Dilu being bed ridden, with a weak eyesight, could not have executed this Will in sound disposing mind. There was no necessity for Shri Dilu to have disinherited the plaintiff. The Will, it is further pleaded, is the result of undue influence, coercion, fraud and mis-representation and, therefore, not valid.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 resists the suit. Allegations are controverted. It is pleaded that plaintiff is not the daughter of Shri Dilu, as she was adopted at young age of fifteen by one Shri Katku. It is denied that the Will is result of any undue influence, fraud or coercion. According to the contesting defendant, she served Dilu till his death. Death ceremonies were also performed by her. The contesting defendant pleads that plaintiff never cultivated the suit land and, therefore, there is no question of plaintiff being dispossessed. According to the defendant, Dilu was hale and hearty and in sound disposing mind when he executed the Will on 25/03/1985 and got it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chachiot. The Will, it is pleaded, was executed by Shri Dilu of his free will without any influence. The allegation that Will has been created, in collusion with the scribe and marginal witnesses, is denied. According to the contesting defendant, she had not played any part in the execution of the Will.