ASHOK BANSAL Vs. ANJU GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these Regular Second Appeals arise from a common judgment dated 6.11.2008 in Civil Appeals No. 20-NL/13 of 2008, 21-NL/13 of 2008, and Cross Objections No. 25-NL/13 of 2008 and common questions of law and facts are involved, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these Regular Second Appeals are that one Harsawaroop Dass was owner in possession of the house, shop and land in dispute. He has one daughter, namely, Anju Goel. His wife had already died. According to the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) since Harsawaroop Dass had married his daughter in a good family and she was living good life, deceased Harsawaroop was alone and was putting up in the house of the plaintiff where the plaintiff, his father, mother and father were putting up. He was looked after by him. Harsawaroop was crippled and was not in a position to walk. He, out of love and affection, executed a "will" in his favour on 27.6.2001 (Ex.P-2). It was also got attested from a Notary Public. Harsawaroop died on 4.6.2003. Respondent-defendant, namely, Anju Goel (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) got the mutation attested in her favour on 20.6.2003 at Sr. No. 347 and 361. According to him, on the basis of "will", he became owner in possession of the suit property and the defendant has got no right, title or interest over the suit property. It is in these circumstances the suit was filed by claiming that plaintiff had become owner of the suit property in view of the execution of "will" and injunction restraining the defendant from interfering over the suit land or dispossessing the plaintiff by force had been sought.

(2.) Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, she was daughter of Harsawaroop. According to her, no "will" was executed by her father. He was living separately. His last rites were performed by her. The "will" claimed by the plaintiff was forged document prepared by Dharminder Singh Rana. The attestation of "will" by Notary Public was also forged to grab the suit property. The plaintiff broke open the house and the shop and forcibly took the possession of the suit property. She lodged complaint with the Station House Officer, Police Station, Nalagarh. The defendant also preferred counter-claim.

(3.) Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. Written statement was also filed to the counter-claim stating therein that the claim of the defendant was not maintainable since he had become owner in possession. Defendant also filed replication to the written statement filed to the counter-claim.