CHARAN DASS Vs. DOLE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2000 of the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. affirming the judgment and decree dated 27th November, 1999 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ani, District Kullu, H.P. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), filed a suit for declaration. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that deceased Khub Ram had an undivided share in the land detailed in the plaint. It was alleged that Khub Ram had died issueless and intestate on 17.8.1986 leaving behind no class I and class II heirs to inherit his property/ estate except the plaintiffs who being the real sister of the mother of late Sh. Khub Ram deceased is the only class II heir entitled to inherit the estate of deceased Khub Ram in preference to defendants No. 1 and 2, who are neither class I heir nor class II heirs but are related as remote agnates to the deceased. It was also alleged that the defendants in connivance with the Local Revenue Officer got the mutation of inheritance entered in their names and the defendants were not entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased in presence and in preference to the plaintiffs. Thus, they have challenged the mutation, sanctioned behind the back of the plaintiffs being illegal, wrong and inoperative. They also challenged the transfer of land by defendants No. 1 and 2 vide gift deed dated 28.7.1988 in favour of defendant No. 7, which mutation was also challenged being wrong, illegal and inoperative as against the rights of the plaintiffs.

(2.) IT was also pleaded that Smt. Bresti, the sole plaintiff during life time had executed a registered Will dated 15.3.1989 in favour of the plaintiffs and she was a sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. Thus the plaintiffs alleged that they have inherited the suit land and are entitled to be declared owners in joint possession of the suit land. The defendants took preliminary objections in regard to the fact that the suit was not properly valued etc. On merits, they have denied that the mutation was got attested in connivance with the Revenue Officer. They also denied the right of Smt. Bresti to execute the Will which was pleaded to be not a genuine document and was a forged document and result of fraud coercion etc. Thus, it was pleaded that the Will was not executed by her. It was also denied that the gift deed was not valid. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the same. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court.

(3.) Parties had led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment held that the mutation attested by the Revenue Officer was null and void and as also the subsequent transfer of the suit land by defendants No. 1 and 2 by gift deed and it was held by the learned trial Court that Smt. Bresti had executed a registered Will in favour of the plaintiffs who have inherited the same and, as such, are owners in joint possession. The relief of injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants. On appeal, those findings were up -held by the learned Appellate Court, who also granted the relief of possession in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present appeal.