SMT. SODHAN Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals filed by Appellant Smt. Sodhan.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration was filed by Respondent Smt. Kaushalya Devi, hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff' as against Smt. Sodhan, Appellant, hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 1 and as against Smt. Biasan Devi and Santosh Kumari, Respondent, hereinafter referred to as Defendants No. 2 and 3. The Plaintiff filed the suit that she is owner in possession of the land measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marlas as alleged in the plaint and as well as owner in possession of Aehata abadi marked ABCD including Khola marked BDEF and courtyard marked AFGH, situated in village Raipur Tappa Thara, Tehsil Bangana, Distt. Una. The Plaintiff had also alleged that the mutation in regard to the estate of Nathu, now deceased infavour of Defendant No. 1 is also wrong. The land in dispute was jointly owned and possessed by Nathu son of Hem Raj and Jagdish Lal son of Nathu. Nathu deceased was the brother of Plaintiff's husband Hari Lal, who died in the village about twenty years back and was succeeded by the Plaintiff, his widow. Jagdish son of Nathu died during the life time of his father and as such, Nathu succeeded to the estate of his predeceased son being his sole heir. The wife of Nathu also died during his life time. It was further alleged that Nathu who was the Plaintiff's husband's brother used to be served and looked after by the Plaintiff since he was ill and had died at the age of 82 years. Nathu died on 18.5.1987 in the village at his house. The Defendants were not related to Nathu deceased in any manner. The Plaintiff alleged that after the death of Nathu, she has succeed to his estate being the sole heir of the deceased.

(3.) It was further alleged that Defendant No. 1 in connivance with others got entered mutation regarding the estate of Nathu deceased on the basis of forged and false will alleged to have been executed by Nathu deceased. The Will was never executed by the deceased who was not competent to do so being old and not of sound and disposing mind. The Defendant was threatening to take possession on the basis of the said mutation and on the basis of the Will. Hence, the suit for declaration filed by the Plaintiff that the said Will was not binding upon the Plaintiff being illegal and relief of permanent injunction was also claimed.