ARUN SHARMA Vs. NAIN PARKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the impugned rendition recorded by the learned trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff whereby he had sought declaration qua mutation No. 9603 attested on 26.09.2003 besides mutation No. 5108 attested on 30.05.2003 qua the suit land being declared to be null and void stood dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the impugned rendition recorded by the learned trial Court wherefrom he has instituted the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the suit property described in the plaint was owned and possessed by one Smt. Savitri wife of Shri Jagdish Parsad, who was the real sister of the father of the plaintiff Shri Ghanshyam. Smt. Savitri being an issueless widow used to live with the plaintiff being her nephew and was being looked after and maintained by him and feeling pleased with the services rendered by the plaintiff to her, she of her own free will executed her last and final Will which was registered on 18.05.1997 bequeathing all her movable and immovable property to him. It is further pleaded that after the death of Smt. Savitri on 7.11.2002 all the property belonging to her was inherited by him on the basis of Will and the mutation No.9603 was entered and attested in his name. It is also mentioned that during the life time of Smt. Savitri land measuring 6-9-13 out of 18-0-0 bighas of land which is area of khasra No.6603 in phati Kharahal was acquired by the PWD and Smt. Savitri along with the plaintiff and other co-sharers filed a reference petition against the award passed by the Collector in the Court of District Judge, Kullu, which was registered as petition No.121 of 1998 titled as Nain Parkash and others versus Collector Land Acquisition and others. The District Judge enhanced the compensation vide order dated 18.9.2000 and the share of Smt. Savitri amounting to Rs. 8,90,958 was deposited by the Government in the Court.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by defendants No.1 to 9, 11 to 14 and 18 by filing a joint written statement. Separate written statements were filed by defendant No.10 and defendants No.15, 16 and 17.