BIDHI SINGH Vs. MEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 17/9/2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. vide which, the appeal filed by the present appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and judgment and decree dtd. 18/9/2017, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. was upheld. (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 plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that he is a joint owner in possession with the defendant in equal share of the suit property described in para 1 of the plaint being legal representatives of his father late Sh. Balia as per the Will dtd. 16/5/1996, executed by Sh. Balia and the Tamlik Nama, dtd. 12/12/2003, is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, which has no bearing on the rights of the plaintiff. A consequential relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff was also sought. It was asserted that the suit land was previously owned by Sh. Balia as ancestral property. The parties are Ghirth by caste. They are governed by the agricultural custom prevalent in the Kangra District, which prohibits the disposal of the property without legal necessity. Balia had executed a Will dtd. 16/5/1996, in favour of the parties. He is stated to have executed a Tamlik Nama dtd. 12/12/2003, without any legal necessity. The defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff based on Tamlik Nama. He was requested not to do so, but in vain;hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.