HEM RAJ Vs. MEERA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) These two appeals are directed against the judgments rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 87/2002 dated 28.9.2004 and Civil Appeal No. 99/2002 decided on 28.9.2004.

(3.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of these appeals are that the appellant in RSA No. 529 of 2004, namely, Hem Raj filed a Civil Suit against the respondents-defendants, namely, Veena, Meera Devi, Sohanu and Lali for declaration and possession and consequential relief. According to the plaintiff, he was grand son of Thakru. He was minor and attained the age of majority on 4.5.1996. The suit was instituted on 22.1.1997. According to him, deceased Thakru had 3537 shares out of 6092 shares in the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 314 min/399 min, Khasra Nos. 13 and 15/2 measuring 15-4-12 bighas. Similarly, deceased Thakru had 586 shares in land comprised in khewat/khatauni No.315/400, Khasra No.18 measuring 7-8-11 bighas situated in Mauja Behna/210 Om Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The suit land was mutated in the name of defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as per the cause title of the suit land vide mutation Nos. 753 and 253 respectively. According to the plaintiff, deceased Thakru had executed a genuine and valid will in his favour on 18.12.1991 in the presence of witnesses. However, he had no knowledge of the Will since it was kept by Sidhu Ram, Vice President of Gram Panchayat. When defendant No.1 sold land out of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2, namely, Meera Devi then plaintiff came to know about the Will in his favour in the month of November, 1996. The Will was handed over to him. It was scribed by Baghirath. On the basis of Will, plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit land and the mutation of inheritance attested in favour of defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 was sought to be declared null and void. It is further stated that on the basis of wrong mutation, defendant No. 1 has sold her entire share in favour of defendant No. 2 without delivering the possession of the same. The sale deed dated 18.12.1996 bearing No.1443 was also sought to be declared null and void.