RAM DAI Vs. MAHI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge -II Kangra at Dharashala in Civil Appeal No. 18 -K/2001 titled Sh. Mahidass alias Man Singh Vs. Smt. Sundari Devi and another. Prayer for affirmation of judgment and decree of learned trial Court sought and prayer for setting aside judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge -II Kangra at Dharamshala HP sought. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Sundari Devi appellant No. 1 died and she was deleted from the memo of parties on the ground that her legal heir namely Smt. Ramdai is already impleaded as co -appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as pleaded are that plaintiff Mahi Dass @ Man Singh filed suit for grant of decree of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of suit land on the basis of Will executed by testator Sh. Rasila Ram. It is further pleaded that mutation Nos. 59 and 78 attested on the basis of Will dated 27th May 1993 are wrong, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land. It is further pleaded that Rasila Ram deceased was co -owner of the suit property along with his brothers. It is further pleaded that the mother of plaintiff namely Smt. Baghan Devi who was the wife of deceased Sh. Rasila Ram died. It is further pleaded that plaintiff only looked after Sh. Rasila Ram during his life time and deceased Rasila Ram executed Will on dated 12th October 1988 in favour of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that after the death of Sh. Rasila Ram plaintiff Mahi Dass remained in settled possession of the suit property. It is further pleaded that on the basis of Will defendants have no right title or interest over the suit property. It is further pleaded that alleged Will executed on dated 27th May 1993 in favour of the defendants was the result of fraud and the same is null and void. It is further pleaded that plaintiff asked the defendants to admit the claim of the plaintiff but the defendants refused to do to. Prayer for decree of the suit as mentioned in the relief clause sought.

(3.) WHETHER the deceased Rasila Ram executed a due and valid Will in favour of defendants on 27.5.1993 as alleged if so, its effect? ...OPD -1.