MANORMA DEVI Vs. NARVADA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants, who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2001 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2001 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 25 of 2000.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case may be noticed. The plaintiff alongwith her mother late Smt. Bati Devi filed the suit seeking declaration and joint possession of the land as described in the plaint on the ground that the land was recorded in the ownership and possession of late Sh. Mast Ram, who was the husband of late Smt. Bati Devi and father of the plaintiff. It was averred in the plaint that late Smt. Bati Devi, is the widow of deceased Mast Ram and the plaintiff/respondent is the daughter of deceased Mast Ram, who is stated to have died on 21.12.1999 and was living with defendant No. 1 without solemnization of any marriage with her and the defendants No. 2 to 4 are stated to be born out of the wedlock of deceased Mast Ram and defendant No. 1 and in consequence to the death of Mast Ram, the plaintiffs and defendants were entitled to inherit the suit land in equal share. It was contended that the deceased Mast was under the influence of liquor and defendant No. 1 in absence of the plaintiffs got a Will executed in favour of her minor sons of the entire immoveable property and the entire moveable property of Mast Ram in her favour which Will is stated to be a result of fraud and undue influence and it be declared null and void, having no binding effect upon the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit property. It was on 14.1.2000 that it had come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendants had procured Will dated 15.6.1992 from deceased Mast Ram in their favour and on the strength thereof, they are likely to get the mutation of the suit property attested in their favour and the plaintiffs though asked the defendants to admit their claim, but the defendants finally refused to admit the claim of the plaintiffs.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues on 28.7.2000: