DHAMESHWAR Vs. GISH PATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 01.06.2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1999.

(2.) Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience), has filed a suit against the respondent-defendant, namely, Gish Pati and proforma respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" for the sake of convenience) for declaration and for permanent prohibitory injunction as a consequential relief. According to the plaintiff, Smt. Drumati Devi had not executed the Will, dated 15.06.1985, Ex. DW2/A in favour of defendant, Sh. Gish Pati. Drumati Devi was 78 years of age in the year 1985. The defendant No. 1 in collusion with the subordinate revenue staff and behind the back of the plaintiff and proforma defendants, got the mutation attested in his favour with regard to the share of late Smt. Drumati Devi. He came to know about this in the month of January, 1994. The Will is unregistered. Smt. Drumati Devi was an old, illiterate and simple lady. She had never expressed her will or desire to disentitle the plaintiff and other proforma defendants from her share in the suit property. The execution of the Will was result of undue influence, misrepresentation and coercion. The Will, dated 15.06.1985, was null and void. He also sought the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant No. 1. The details of the suit land have been given in paragraphs No. 1(a) & 1(b) of the plaint.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1. According to him, Smt. Draumati Devi was fully capable and sensible lady. She in lieu of the services rendered by him, executed a Will in his favour. Thereafter, on the basis of the Will, dated 15.06.1985, the mutation was also attested. The revenue entries were in accordance with the law.