KISHAN SINGH Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff (wrongly written as defendant in the memo of parties) and is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, on 06.11.2013, in Civil Appeal No. 106/2012, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kullu, on 05.10.2012, in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2007 (168 of 2009) and remanded the suit back to the learned trial Court with direction to proceed in the suit from order dated 11.01.2012 onwards.

(2.) CERTAIN facts as are necessary for the adjudication of this case may be noticed. The plaintiff had filed suit to the effect that one Ishari Dass was owner in possession of the suit land i.e. 1/3rd share equal to 8 -01 -0 bighas described in the plaint. The plaintiff had four sons namely Kishan Singh, plaintiff, Puran Chand, Hari Chand and Paine Ram, defendants No. 1 to 3, and three daughters namely Ram Dei, HIra Devi and Radha Devi, defendants No. 4 to 6. Defendant No. 3 Paine Ram is issueless. It was also averred that Ishari Dass bequeathed his entire estate including the suit land in favour of plaintiff, defendants No. 1 and 2 vide registered Will dated 29.06.1979 as plaintiff rendered services to Ishari Dass during his life time. The plaintiff along with defendants No. 1 and 2 used to cultivate and manage the suit land on behalf of Ishari Dass. Plaintiff and Ishari Dass were residing jointly and they were having joint kitchen. Ishari Dass died on 06.11.2002 and after his death plaintiff along with defendants No. 1 and 2 inherited the suit land on the basis of aforesaid Will. However, at the time of attestation of mutation of inheritance, defendants No. 1 and 2 set up a forged and fictitious Will dated 28.06.1989 of Ishari Dass and on the basis of said fictitious Will, A.C. 2nd Grade, Kullu, attested and sanctioned mutation of inheritance in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. It was further averred that plaintiff challenged that in fact Ishari Dass did not execute any Will dated 28.06.1989. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration that plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 be declared joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/3rd share each and defendants be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction claiming any right over the suit land on the basis of fictitious and forged Will dated 28.06.1989.

(3.) THE remaining defendants did not contest the suit and as such they were proceeded ex -parte by the learned trial Court.