INDIRA WATI Vs. KUMARI RANJANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 15/2001 decreeing thereby Civil Suit No.15/2001 while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kasauli, District Solan, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal with the prayer to set aside the same.

(2.) Respondents, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the attestation of mutation of the suit land entered in Khata/Khatauni 2/2, Kita 28, measuring 103.8 Bighas, situated in Mouza Chilla Khurd, Habast No.633, Tehsil and District Solan, to the extent of 9 shares, out of 96 shares in the name of the defendant on the basis of a Will, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession thereof and the attestation of mutation No.49 in favour of the defendant on 17.8.1995 and the subsequent entries in the revenue record based on it, are wrong illegal and void abnitio as the same neither create any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant nor are binding upon the plaintiffs and also that in case they are found to have been dispossessed from the suit land, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining thereby the defendant from making any interference in the suit land or creating any charge and alienating the same in any manner whatsoever, be also passed.

(3.) Defendant is the mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and maternal grand mother of plaintiffs No. 2 to 6. Smt. Pushpa, the deceased had inherited the suit land on the death of her father late Shri Ram Lal. She had also inherited the land from her father in village DharanjiDhobtan, which, however, was released by her in favour of the defendant vide relinquishment deed Ext. DW4/A. The land in dispute is situated in village Chilla Khurd. Smt. Pushpa Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was admittedly suffering from cancer and she passed away on 5.8.1993. As per the case of the plaintiffs, she being in a critical condition, was not in a sound disposing mind and as such, could have not executed any Will, that too on 24.6.1993 about two months before her death. The Will Ext.DW3/A on the basis whereof the suit land has been mutated in the name of the defendant vide order Ext. PW1/B/Ext.DW1/A is stated to be neither legal nor a genuine document.