RAM DASS Vs. KISHAN DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dated May 19, 1975. Kariloo and Ragha were real brothers. Ragha had a son Chintu who was the last male owner of the land in dispute. He, however, died on June 21, 1961, leaving defendant Smt. Durgi as his natural heir. Smt. Durgi set up her claim as the sole heir of Chintu. On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the estate of Chintu on the basis of a will alleged by him to, have been executed by Chintu in his favour. It may be pointed out that the plaintiff's grandfather Kariloo and Chintu's father Ragha were real brothers and as such, the plaintiff and the defendant stood in a sense in the relationship of cousin brother and sister. The elders of the village intervened and a settlement was arrived at between the parties under which the plaintiff was entitled to a one-third share and the defendant to the remaining two-third share in the land in dispute The terms of the settlement were reduced into writing and the document was registered. The plaintiff alleges that subsequently the defendant refused to accept the plaintiffs right to a one-third share in the estate and mutation in respect of the entire land was sanctioned in favour of the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises, praying for possession of the entire estate on the basis of the will and, alternatively, for possession of a one-third share on the basis of the settlement.

(2.) The defendant resisted the suit but admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and Chintu. The defendant however, denied that any will had been exectlted by Chintu in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant further admitted the settlement between the parties but asserted that the plaintiff had approached the Sarpanch and a Panch for a share in the land with the assurance that he would treat the defendant as his sister and her sons as his nephews for all time and upon that the Sarpanch and Panch compelled the defendant to agree to surrender one-third share in the land in dispute to the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the agreement to which she was compelled to be made party was brought about by undue influence and frauds It was also alleged that the plaintiff had admitted that Chintu had executed no will in his favors.

(3.) The trial Court held that no will had been executed by Chintu in favour of the plaintiff but, on the basis of the settlement, it decreed the suit for possession of one-third share in the disputed land. The defendant preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamsala but the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendant and affirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court. The defendant died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal representatives were brought on the record. The legal representatives of the defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge to this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, however, dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.