VISHAL PURI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25.03.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1990.

(2.) 'Key facts' necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs, Smt. Ajudhia Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit claiming herself to be the owner in possession of the land entered in Khata No. 37, Khatoni No. 75, Khasra No. 442/426, 240/1, measuring 1 K-19 Marlas, as per Jamabandi for the year 1968-69, situated in Village Gaura Khurd, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur to an extent of 1/8 share by virtue of written testament (will) allegedly executed by her father, late Lachhman Dass on 04.01.1963 in her favour and also 7/8 share in the land entered in Khata No. 37, Khatauni No. 75, Khasra Nos. 442/426-240/1, measuring 1 K-19 M, as per Jamabandi for the year 1968-69, situated in Village Gaura Khurd, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. According to her, the mutation No. 380 sanctioned by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Hamirpur on 07.07.1971 qua the inheritance of her father in respect of the suit land is stated to be void.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondents defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants' for the sake of convenience). According to them, the plaintiff was not the daughter of deceased Lachhman Dass, as such, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. Shri Dina Nath, husband of the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The suit land was stated to be self acquired property of deceased Lachhman Dass. Thus, there was no question of the same being allegedly acquired benami by him from Dina Nath. A case filed by Dina Nath against the deceased Lachman in the year 1956 was dismissed and the decree in Civil Suit No. 144 of 56 qua the land in dispute was passed in favour of the deceased Lachman Dass and the plaintiff was bound by the decree. The execution of a will in favour of the plaintiff by deceased Lachman Dass, was denied. A case under Sections 467 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff that she in connivance with her husband had managed a forged will in her favour qua the property left behind by deceased Lachhman Dass. However, the husband of the plaintiff has made a statement that no such will was ever executed by him in favour of his wife. Mutation No. 380 in favour of the defendants was stated to have been rightly sanctioned.