BHAGAT RAM Vs. KHUSHI RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.3.2005 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una in Civil Appeal No. 155/97 RBT 72/04/1997. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff (herein after referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants" for convenience sake) to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of the land as per the -details given in the plaint on the basis of "will" dated 11.12.1985 executed by Rattan Chand son of Hako son of Kahna resident of village Santokhgarh. Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land left by Rattan Chand. He has also prayed for relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or alienating in any manner or taking forcible possession of the suit land. The suit land was owned and possessed by Rattan Chand. He has executed "will" in favour of the plaintiff in sound and disposing mind. Rattan Chand died on 8.12.1986. He performed his last rites.

(2.) Suit was contested by defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Shanti Devi, Sukhdev and Avtar Chand. According to them, no "will" was ever executed by Rattan Chand, husband of defendant No. 2 and father of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Rattan Chand was of unsound mind and he had no capacity to understand and manage his affairs. Plaintiff attempted to get forged "will" registered from the office of Sub -Registrar. It was rejected. Defendant filed an appeal before the Registrar. It was also dismissed. They were in possession of the suit property.

(3.) Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the Sub -Judge 1st Class on 20.11.1992. He dismissed the suit on 29.8.1997. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.1997 before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una. He dismissed the same on 10.3.2005. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on 26.11.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: