LAWS(HPH)-2011-5-329

PARKASH CHAND Vs. RAKSHA DEVI

Decided On May 24, 2011
PARKASH CHAND Appellant
V/S
RAKSHA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 13.6.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 26.12.1991, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant (hereinafter also referred as the plaintiff) filed a suit for possession as against the original defendant Kaushalya Devi, now represented by the present respondent, (hereinafter also referred to as defendant). It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land in suit, measuring 12 kanal 13 marla, as detailed in the plaint, was owned by Smt.Ram Dei as co-owner in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that Smt. Ram Dei was maternal grand mother of the plaintiff and she had brought up the plaintiff during his childhood and he had been rendering services to her on attaining majority. It was also alleged that Smt. Ram Dei had executed a registered Will, dated 12.4.1979, in his favour. The said Ram Dei died on 19.5.1983. The defendant, joint owner in the Khata, had forcibly occupied the suit land claiming that Smt. Ram Dei had executed a Will in her favour. It was alleged that the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff was the last Will executed by her while the Will propounded by the defendant is forged and fabricated one. The plaintiff also claimed that he is entitled to possession being the sole legal heir of Smt. Ram Dei to the extent of her share, hence the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant took preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability, jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiff was brought up by Smt. Ram Dei or that she was looked after by the plaintiff during her life time. The defendant claimed herself to be the daughter-in-law of Smt. Ram Dei and pleaded that out of her love and affection and in view of the services rendered by her, said Ram Dei had executed a Will in her favour on 19.5.1974 and mutation had also been sanctioned in her favour. The defendant had also claimed to have performed all the last rituals after the death of Ram Dei. The defendant further claimed that she is recorded as tenant over the suit land since long and after the death of Smt. Ram Dei, she has become the owner of the same by operation of law.