GIAN CHAND Vs. SHIV DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2013 rendered by the Additional District Judge (II), Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2001.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration that the "will" alleged to have been executed on 1.1.1998 by Narain Lal be declared null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants" for convenience sake) and proforma defendants from interfering, alienating and changing the nature of the suit land. According to the plaintiff, land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.22/23, Khasra No. 546/361 measuring 0-00-96 hectares was owned and possessed by deceased Narain Lal. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 34/35, Khasra No. 25 measuring 0-04-02 hectares situated in village Matokhar was owned to the extent of 1/2 share by the deceased Narain Lal and 1/2 share by the proforma defendant Laskari Ram. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni Nos. 68/71 to 73, kitas 32 measuring 3-35-54 hectares was owned and possessed by deceased Narain Lal to the extent of 1/2 share and land contained in Khewat Khatauni No. 69 min/74 to 76, kitas 16 measuring 1-75-24 hectares was owned and possessed by Narain Lal to the extent of 1/2 share. According to the plaintiff, she is legally wedded wife of Narain Lal, who was working in Bharat Swantantar Cloth Mill, Delhi and was drawing Rs. 5000/- per month. According to her, Narain Lal has died on 8.6.1998. Narain Lal has never executed "will" dated 1.1.1998. The Sub-Registrar, Baldwara has refused to register the "will. The "will", according to her, was false and fictitious document.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants have admitted that plaintiff was legally wedded wife of Narain Lal. According to them, plaintiff had filed a suit for maintenance against Narain Lal. He was dragged into litigation by the plaintiff. They have looked after Narain Lal. The "will" was duly registered. According to them, plaintiff has also been given share in the "will".