ASHA DEVI Vs. TARSEM DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Asha Devi, plaintiff is in second appeal. She is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3rd January, 2004, passed by learned District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2000. As a matter of fact, the present is a case of concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below because while learned Senior Sub Judge, Una has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for the grant of decree of declaration that Will dated 19th November, 1992 Ext. PW -7/A executed by her mother Smt. Prabhi in her favour, being a genuine document, is legal and valid and the order of mutation No. 3973 whereby the land in dispute alongwith her, is to be inherited by Smt. Tarsem Devi, the first defendant, is null and void and not binding on her, learned lower appellate Court while concurring with the judgment and decree so passed by learned trial Court has dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE subject matter of dispute in the present lis is the property as detailed in the head -note of the plaint, situate in Mauza Kuthar Beet, Tehsil Haroli, District Una.

(3.) IT is canvassed that defendant No. 1 never rendered any service to Smt. Prabhi during her life time. She contested the mutation proceedings merely to grab the suit property with an object to sell the same. She succeeded in her illegal designs, as after about four days of the attestation of the mutation she sold the land in her share to defendants No. 2 and 3 on 30th November, 1994 in a sum of Rs. 75,000/ -, which according to plaintiff is fictitious sale consideration because as per the sale deed only a sum of Rs. 27,000/ - was passed on to first defendant and the remaining amount not shown. Hence the suit for the decree of declaration to the effect that Will Ext. PW -7/A being a genuine document, is legal and valid and mutation No. 3973 dated 26th November, 1994 in favour of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and consequential sale of a part of the suit property by defendant No. 1 to defendants No. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 30th November, 1994 is also illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land has also been sought to be passed.