BALA RAM Vs. DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, Regular Second Appeal No. 205 of 1999 and CMP No. 698 of 2004, whereby the Appellant has prayed that the Respondents be punished for disobedience of the orders of this Court, are being disposed of since common questions of law are involved.

(2.) THIS undisputed facts are that Smt. Surti Devi was the mother of the Plaintiff Bala Ram and his two brothers Jindu Ram and Dola Ram. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are the widow and two sons of Jindu Ram and Respondents No. 4 to 8 are the widow, sons and daughters of Dola Ram. It is not disputed that Smt. Surti Devi executed a Will Ext.PA on 14.6.1982 whereby she bequeathed her Immovable property comprised in Khasra Nos. 4548, 4748, 4669, 4646, 4652 and 4647 to Shri Dola Ram. She also by the same will bequeathed Khasra Nos. 3337, 4625, 4817, 4816, 4815, 4819, 4818, 4820, 4652, 4647 to Plaintiff Bala Ram. In her will she also bequeathed her house and surrounding grass land to three sons jointly in equal shares. She bequeathed the remaining land to her 3rd son Jindu Ram on the condition that he would maintain her and if he does not maintain her then the remaining land would also go to all the three sons in equal shares. It is also not disputed that mutation in terms of the Will was first attested in the year 1991 but Dola Ram filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter remitted and thereafter in the year 1994 land was mutated in terms of the Will. However, the revenue authorities found that though in the Will Smt. Surti Devi had stated that she was sole owner of the land mentioned in some of the khasra numbers but in fact she only had a share in the land and therefore, the mutation was attested only in respect of the share of Surti Devi in these khasra numbers.

(3.) IT appears that in both the Courts below the Plaintiff did not seriously rake up the plea that Jindu had not looked after his mother. In fact, if Jindu had not looked after his mother, she could have easily cancelled the Will in her life time, which she has not done. There is no reliable evidence on record to show that Jindu did not look after his mother and in fact this question does not seem to have been agitated in earnest before the Courts below. The main ground which has been raised before the Courts below is that in the Will Surti Devi had stated that she was in exclusive ownership and possession of whole Khasra numbers 3332, 3337, 3536, 4625 and 4645 but the Plaintiff was only given 7/24 share in the land.