MAGHI Vs. BHOOP SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi whereby it allowed the appeal preferred before it by the defendants who stood aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court whereunder the latter decreed the suit of the plaintiff appellant.

(2.) The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith father of the defendants Aishi Ram and Ahi Chand to the extent of the share as mentioned in Para -1 of the plaint. The defendants are real nephews of the plaintiff who is a village simpleton and illiterate lady of remote area. The father of the defendants Aishi Ram and Ahi Ram in order to take advantage of illiteracy of the plaintiff allured her to execute the 'Will' of her 1/12 share measuring 6 -2 -3 bighas and took away the plaintiff to Sub -Tehsil Balichowki and in collusion with the petition writer got prepared forged and fictitious gift deed dated 2.9.1999 instead of writing the Will and also got registered the same. The defendants and their father allured the plaintiff to execute the Will and assured her that they will help her and other family members financially at the time of difficulties and in case they will not do so, the plaintiff will be at liberty to revoke or cancel the Will but instead of preparing the Will they got prepared the Gift deed and they also got prepared forged and fictitious Special Power of Attorney for the purpose of attestation of mutation taking advantage of illiteracy of the plaintiff and the contents of the gift deed were never read -over and explained to the plaintiff and she was told that the document is a Will and the marginal witnesses have also wrongly attested the false and forged gift deed. The plaintiff remained under -impression that she has executed Will of her share in her parental house and she is at liberty to revoke or cancel the Will in case the defendants and their father will not help her family but the plaintiff came to know later on that mutation of the suit land has been attested by the revenue authorities in favour of the defendants on 16.12.1999 and then on inquiry she came to know that a forged and fictitious gift deed has been got executed from her. The defendants on the basis of wrong revenue entries are now threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and they are also threatening to alienate and transfer the suit land.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendants on the ground of maintainability and non joinder and mis -joinder of necessary parties. It has been stated that the plaintiff has executed gift deed of the suit property of her own free will and it is denied that the said gift deed is forged or fictitious document. It has been further stated that the gift deed was registered in the office of the Sub -Registrar and even special power of attorney was also got prepared by the plaintiff of her own free will. It is denied that any fraud was practiced upon the plaintiff at the time of execution of the gift deed and special power of attorney and it is also denied that the plaintiff was taken by the father of the defendants for execution of the Will.