RAGHU RAM Vs. BIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) RAGHU Ram - Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession with regard to suit property, on the basis of Will dated 18.1.1985 (Ext.P -1), executed by one Smt. Hardei widow of Bhagat Ram, resident of Mauza Khanot, Sub Tehsil Baldwara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. According to Plaintiff, in terms of Will (Ext.P -1) entire estate of Smt. Hardei, who died without any surviving legal heirs (Class -I and Class -II), he succeeded to her. The suit was filed against Smt. Bimla Devi, Defendant No. 1, who claimed to have succeeded to the extent of half share in the estate of Smt. Hardei on the strength of another Will dated 8.4.1985 (Ext.D -1), registered on 9.4.1985. Defendants No. 2 to 17, namely, Bansi, Nand Lal, Khayali, Smt. Mahanti, Smt. Chinti, Smt. Santi, Pavan Kumar, Smt. Jamna, Smt. Kalpna, Smt. Sandhya, Smt. Lajo, Smt. Gita, Brij Lal, Sant Ram, Jeet Ram, Ishwar Dass, respectively were arrayed as parties for the reason that they claimed to be collaterals of deceased Smt. Hardei and thus entitled to inherit the estate. Shri Panchhi Ram Defendant No. 18 claimed himself to be owner of the entire estate by virtue of yet another Will executed in his favour by deceased Smt. Hardei. According to him, he was also the adopted son of deceased Smt. Hardei.

(3.) ON the basis of the evidence led by the parties and material placed on record, the trial Court found that the propounder of the Wills i.e. the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 18 were not able to prove that the respective Wills were executed in accordance with the Indian Succession Act . They were shrouded with suspicious circumstances. Defendant No. 18 could also not prove that he was the adopted son of deceased Smt. Hardei. Consequently, Plaintiff 's suit as also the counter -claim of Defendant No. 18 was dismissed in terms of judgment dated 26.4.1994 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 105/1985 titled as Raghu Ram v. Smt. Bimla and Ors. However, while doing so, the Court declared Defendants No. 2 to 16 to be the collaterals of equal degrees and as such entitled to succeed to the estate of deceased Smt. Hardei.