SATISH CHANDER Vs. JAGDISH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement and decree recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 147-J/05/03, whereby he in affirmation to the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff wherein he had sought a declaration qua gift deed comprised in Ex.DW2/A being quashed and set aside. The plaintiff/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below wherefrom he has instituted the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the lis inter se the parties were that the plaintiff sought declaration that he is joint owner to the extent of 435/924 shares in the suit land since the suit land was earlier owned by the mother of the parties Smt. Vidya Devi wife of late Dharam Vir. It had been averred that a Will was executed by Vidya Devi in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in full disposing mind on 9.4.1991 and as per that Will, the land to the extent of 0-02-85 hectares was given to defendant No.1 and 0-03-84 hectares was given to the plaintiff. The deceased had also executed a Will in respect of other land vide which the land had been given to the proforma defendants NO.2 and 3. The plaintiff was earlier residing at Patiala and thereafter shifted to Shimla as he was in government service. The defendant taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff by playing fraud upon Vidya Devi got a false and fictitious gift deed executed.

(3.) Defendant No.1 contested the suit and taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action. It had been averred that the plaintiff was regularly visiting to his house. It had also been averred that Vidya Devi was not a simple lady. She executed a valid gift deed in faovur of defendant No.1 out of her free will and undue influence. The gift was registered with the Sub Registrar, Jawali. Thus there was no question of fraud. Defendant NO.1 has become owner of 558 shares out of 924 shares out of which 285 shares were due on account of the gift deed. The houses constructed by defendant No.1 by raising loan from the financial institution. Thereby the plaintiff and proforma defendants have got no share over that house. The plaintiff is owner to the extent of 366 shares out of 924 shares. It had been averred that the parties are not governed by custom in the matters of alienation. Vidya Devi had every right to alienate suit land by way of gift being owner-inpossession of the suit land. The deed is valid and a legal document. Thereby the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.