SUDESH KUMARI Vs. PAWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/8/2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the appeal filed by the appellant (plaintiff before learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that she has succeeded her mother Savitri Devi's share in the suit land mentioned in the headnote of the plaint on the basis of Hindu Succession Act, entries regarding Savitri Devi's estate in favour of the defendant based on the Will dtd. 7/10/2010 bearing registration No. 3313/2010 registered with Sub Registrar, Indora, stated to have been executed by Savitri Devi are null and void and do not affect the rights of the plaintiff to succeed to her estate. A relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land, dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land, cutting and removing the trees and changing the nature of the suit land was also sought. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession to the extent of her share. It was pleaded that Savitri Devi was the owner in possession of the suit land. She died intestate on 15/12/2011, leaving behind the plaintiff as her only legal heir. The defendant got attested Mutation No. 407 dtd. 23/7/2012 in Mohal Badala, Tehsil Indora and Mutation No. 137 dtd. 23/7/2012 in Mohal Dhanera, Tehsil Fatehpur, regarding the estate of the deceased based on the Will stated to have been executed by her on 07/10/2010 registered with Sub Registrar, Indora at Sr. No. 3313/2010. Savitri Devi was not mentally fit and, in a sound, disposing state of mind. She never executed any Will and was not competent to execute the Will due to her mental status. The Will was prepared in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses. The plaintiff used to visit her mother. The defendant used to reside at some distance from the house of Savitri Devi. He never served Savitri Devi during her lifetime. The Will is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the defendant to admit her claim, but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action, the plaintiff having not approached the Court with clean hands, the plaintiff being estopped by her act and conduct from filing the suit and the suit being barred by limitation. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that Savitri Devi executed a Will on 07/10/2010 in favour of the defendant in her sound disposing state of mind. The defendant became the owner of the suit land on the basis of the Will. Savitri Devi had mentioned in her Will that she had already given enough money, gold, silver jewellery and other articles to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage. Savitri Devi was residing with the defendant and the defendant looked after her in all respects. The defendant is nephew of Savitri Devi and he served Savitri Devi after the death of her husband. He bore all the expenses of the plaintiff and her mother Savitri Devi. The plaintiff sold her share of the land, which she had inherited from her father. The plaintiff filed the present suit to grab the property; hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.