SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. VIJAY KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 25-6-1998. Necessary facts :

(2.) The suit property was owned by one Paddu Ram. Paddu Ram had two sons, namely Kewal Krishan and Om Parkash. Kewal Krishan pre-deceased Paddu Ram. Paddu Ram expired on 21-10-1991. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Kewal Krishan. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of half share. Plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction against the defendant Om Parkash now substituted by his legal representatives (appellants herein) from alienating or charging the nature of the land more than his share in the property. Case of the plaintiffs was that after the death of Kewal Krishan, plaintiffs looked after Paddu Ram, rendered all service to him, during his lifetime. Paddu Ram out of love and affection, executed a Will dated 19-9-1991 in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants of his entire property in equal shares.

(3.) Defendant Om Parkash contested the claim of the plaintiffs. Execution of the Will by Paddu Ram, as claimed by the plaintiff, was disputed. Defendant set up another Will, allegedly executed by Paddu Ram on 17-8-1991 in his favour bequeathing the entire property to him. It was claimed that as defendant Om Parkash was looking after Paddu Ram, therefore, due to natural love and affection he executed the Will in his favour, excluding the plaintiffs. The execution of the Will dated 7-8-1991 set up by the defendant was disputed. It was pleaded that if the Will was in fact executed, then it was procured by misrepresentation and exercise of undue influence by the defendant. It was also maintained that the Will dated 7-8-1991 has no force in law after the execution of the later Will by Paddu Ram.