MILKHI RAM Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 22.3.2014 rendered by learned Additional District Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh Circuit Court at Dehra, in RBT Civil Appeal No. 10-G/13/10. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) that after the death of Jaishi Ram son of Shri Nagu, he was exclusive owner-in-possession of the land, as per details given in the plaint, as per Jamabandi for the year 2001-02. Plaintiff is the nearest agnate of Shri Jaishi Ram and Jaishi Ram did not execute any Will in favour of the defendant. Jaishi Ram died on 18.10.2004. Jaishi Ram was served by him. Jaishi Ram was a simple and illiterate person and he did not have any independent mind to decide. He was duped by many villagers to grab his property. Defendant has got entered mutation on the basis of fabricated document Will Ext. DW-6/A dated 12.6.2003. According to plaintiff, Will was full of doubt and shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged Will was not a genuine Will. Suit was contested by the defendant. It was denied that plaintiff is the nearest agnate and is the only person to succeed the property of Jaishi Ram. It is denied that the plaintiff, after the death of Jaishi Ram, has become owner-in-possession of the suit land and that Jaishi Ram was a relative of the defendant. He was issueless. His wife had also predeceased him. Nobody looked after Jaishi Ram. Out of love and affection, he executed a Will on 12.6.2003 in favour of the defendant. Will was executed by the deceased out of free volition and he was in his full senses. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 17.1.2007. The civil suit was dismissed on 31.10.2009. Plaintiff preferred appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala, who dismissed the same on 22.3.2014. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) The appeal was admitted on 17.12.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, that Will Ext. DW-6/A was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. He also contended that learned Courts below have mis-read and misconstrued the statements of DW-6 Jagdish Chand, DW-7 Des Raj, DW-8 Bhagwan Singh and DW-9 Sushil Kumar. Ingredients of Sections 63 and 68 of the Succession Act were not fully complied with.