JAMUNA DEVI Vs. ARJUN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No. 40/04, dated 26.11.2007, vide which, learned Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal so filed by present appellant upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chamba, District Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 97/2001, dated 26.02.2004.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation No. 717, dated 31.07.1996 and subsequent revenue entries entered on the basis of aforesaid mutation regarding property comprised in Khasra Nos. 442, 443, measuring 0-2-14 bighas, Khata Khatauni No. 136 min/173, 174, situated in Mohal Bharmour, Pargana and Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') were illegal, null and void and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff and also suit for restraining the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as defendants) from interfering, dismantling or changing the nature of the suit land. As per plaintiff, actual owner of the suit land was Nanak Chand, father-in-law of the plaintiff, who had executed a Will in favour of plaintiff on 08.05.1991. After the death of Nanak Chand, defendants No. 1 and 2 got suit property mutated in their favour vide mutation No. 717, dated 31.07.1996 in collusion with revenue staff.

(3.) The claim of the plaintiff was contested by defendant No. 1 Arjun, who took the stand in the written statement that Nanak Chand was a co-sharer in Khasra Nos. 442 and 443 and he had not executed any Will qua Khasra Nos. 442 and 443 and Will, if any, was procured by Ranjha Ram (defendant No. 2), husband of the plaintiff for the benefit of his wife. It was further mentioned in the written statement defendant No. 2 had also procured another Will in favour of his son Manoj Kumar and Manoj Kumar had also filed a similar suit against defendant No. 1. It was further the stand of defendant No. 1 that suit property was rightly mutated in favour of defendant No. 1 and that too at the instance of defendant No. 2 and there was no collusion with the revenue staff as alleged. On these bases, claim of the plaintiff was contested by defendant No. 1.