SHRI NIKA RAM, SON OF SHRI HOLU, VILLAGE AND P.O. DOGHRI, PHATI PICHLI, KOTHI MANAGER, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KULU (HP) AND ORS. Vs. SH. MOTI RAM, SON OF SHRI HOLU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 C.P.C against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu dated 20.6.2001 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge Lahaul & Spiti (Sub Judge Ist Class Kullu) dated 29.5.2000 vide which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs ) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the suit land as described in the plaint was owned and possessed by Holu, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and defendants. It was alleged that Holu died on 15.5.1998. Before his death, he had executed a registered will dated 24.8.1992 in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants. It was alleged that the said will was executed under the influence of defendant No. 1. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that Holu cancelled the aforesaid will and executed his last and valid will dated 28.1.1995 in favour of the parties to the suit wherein all the persons have been given their share in the suit land. It was alleged that defendants No. 1 to 4 in connivance with the Revenue Officer got the mutation attested on the basis of the will dated 24.8.92 and will dated 28.1.95 in favour of the plaintiff and others was also presented before the Revenue Officer but the mutation was attested on the basis of the will dated 24.8.92. The defendants were requested to admit the claim of the plaintiffs which they refused, hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 contested the case only. He admitted that will dated 24.8.92 was executed by Holu but pleaded that since defendant No. 1 was rendering the services to the deceased during his life time, therefore, some more land was bequeathed in favour of the defendant No. 1 measuring 2 -19 -0 bighas in addition to his 1/6th share. The mutation was attested on 4.7.98 after the death of the deceased and it was attested in presence of the plaintiff who did not raise any objection. It was denied that the deceased had revoked vide will dated 24.8.92 and executed a fresh will in favour of the parties on 28.1.95.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: