SANT PIARI Vs. JAGTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal, the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as defendant ) has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2001, vide which judgment, learned Appellate Court while dismissing the first appeal of the present appellant has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, in Civil Suit No. 259 of 1997, dated 28.6.2001.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 26.05.2005, on the following substantial question of law:-

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were in possession of the share of Smt. Amar Kaur, wife of Shri Rattan Singh in the suit property on the basis of a valid registered Will dated 16.12.1991, which was executed by deceased Amar Kaur in favour of plaintiffs and defendant had no right, title or interest on the suit land. Plaintiffs also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property or from raising any forcible construction etc. over the same. According to the plaintiffs, deceased Amar Kaur was owner in possession of a specific share of property measuring 2-39-16 sq. meters and Smt. Amar Kaur was being looked after by them and they also provided her all the necessities of life and help etc. Even in her old age she was looked after well by the plaintiffs, therefore, out of love and affection and also in token of services rendered to her by them, she executed a valid Will on 16.12.1991, vide which she bequeathed her entire estate including the suit land in their favour. Smt. Amar Kaur died on 31.1.1992 issueless and her last rites were also performed by the plaintiffs. Defendant who had no right, title or interest over the suit land was airing unwarranted threats to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and also to raise forcible construction over the same by cutting and removing trees over the suit land. In this background, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs.