NARESH KUMAR Vs. AMRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan, District Solan, H.P., vide which the appeal filed by the present respondents (plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court) was allowed and the judgment and decree dtd. 25/4/2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Arki, District Solan, H.P. was set-aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the unregistered Will dtd. 15/8/1995 is a result of fraud, misrepresentation and Mutation No. 1036, dtd. 5/2/1997, based on the Will is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. A further declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the property of Balak Ram being widow and daughter was also prayed. The plaintiff also sought a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner, whatsoever, with the estate of Balak Ram.

(3.) It was pleaded that plaintiff no. 2 and Balak Ram were married in the year 1961 as per Hindu Customary Law prevalent in Tehsil Arki. The marriage was solemnized in Village Kuveru Sehrol and Basantpur. Amra Devi (plaintiff No.1) was born to the parties. The marriage was solemnized by Padam Dev, Vaid, a resident of Kalyanpur. The people of Village Basantpur participated in the marriage and took food in the house of Narotam, the father of Paragu. Amra Devi was married 10 years before the filing of the suit and she was residing in her matrimonial home. Balak Ram died on 26/12/1996 while discharging his duties at Gumma. No intimation was given to the plaintiff no.2 because plaintiff no.1 is residing at Village Kuhawi and plaintiff no.2 is residing at Shimla. The relationship between the plaintiffs and Balak Ram was strained. The defendant propounded an unregistered Will stated to have been executed by Balak Ram in his favour; however, it is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. Balak Ram was working in the Electricity Department near Rampur and he was on duty on 14/8/1995. It was highly improbable that he would have visited the village to execute a Will on 15/8/1995 and joined his duties on 16/8/1995. The defendant got mutation no. 1036 attested in his favour on 5/2/1997. Learned AC-2nd Grade, Arki did not carry out the proper inquiry before attesting the mutation. The plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the estate of Balak Ram; hence suit was filed to seek the reliefs mentioned above.