MAST RAM Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree under challenge in the present appeal has been passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in civil appeal No.2 -P/98 on 17.3.2001 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree passed on 26.9.1997 by learned Sub Judge 1st Class (Court No.II), Palamapur in civil suit No.270/88.

(2.) THE subject matter of dispute in the present lis is land entered in khata No.10, khatauni No.23, khasra No. kita 14, measuring 1 -35 -18 hectares, situated in Mohal Sole Baner, Mauza Lambagaon, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). Respondents No.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") are daughters, whereas appellant, Mast Ram and proforma respondents No.5 and 6, Balak Ram and Jagat Ram and proforma respondent No.4, Prabhi Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") were sons and widow respectively of the owner of the suit land, deceased Chhangu Ram. While as per the plaintiffs their father late Shri Chhangu Ram never executed any 'will' in respect of the suit land and that on his death the succession opened in their favour and also in that of appellant -defendant, Mast Ram and proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant"). The 1st appellant -defendant being his class legal heir propounded the 'will' dated 1.7.1984 and pleaded that pursuant to the will, the suit land came to be inherited by him alongwith other defendants and Smt. Malkan Devi, the second widow of Chhangu Ram. The mutation of the suit land according to him was sanctioned and attested by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade in their favour in the presence of the plaintiffs. Therefore, according to him, the plaintiffs are estopped by way of their acts, deeds and conduct from filing the present suit and the same being time barred and their being no locus standi to file the suit, the same is even not maintainable also. S/Shri Balak Ram and Jagat Ram and Smt. Prabhi Devi, defendants No.1, 2 and 4 respectively have however denied the execution of will by their predecessor late Shri Chhangu Ram during his life time and, as such, supported the contentions raised by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE parties on both sides have produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.