MANOJ KUMAR Vs. MATHRA DASS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2007, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 263/1 of 2005/1997 was ordered to be modified.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff Mathra Dass filed a suit for declaration that he and defendant No. 1 Bhag Singh were joint owners in possession over the land measuring 64.1 Bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 103, 104, 333, 711, 713, 922/813, 925/814, 830, 832, 834, 835, 837, 838/1, 839, 840, 841, Kita 16, Khata/Khatauni No. 71/86 situated in village Ghandalwin, Pargana Ajmerpur, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (herein after referred to as the suit land) and they were having 1/2 share each in it by virtue of Will dated 23.11.1977 executed by their father Sh. Rama Ram in their favour, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghumarwin on 24.11.1977 vide No. 294, with further declaration that mutation No. 1041 dated 18.9.1996 attested in favour of the plaintiff and defendants was wrong and illegal as the same was attested on the basis of false and forged documents. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants from interfering over the suit land by cutting the trees, changing the nature or making any alienation qua any part of the suit land on the basis of wrong entries in any manner. In the alternative, a decree for possession was also prayed in case the plaintiff was disposed from the suit land forcibly by the defendants during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) It was averred in the plaint that father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 late Sh. Rama Ram was owner in possession over the suit land and on 23.11.1977, he executed a will in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghumarwin on 24.11.1977. It was further averred that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were having 1/2 shares each in the suit land by virtue of will dated 23.11.1977 and Smt. Duri Devi widow of late Shri Rama Ram, was having only life interest on the basis of said will. It was further averred that defendant No. 1 on 16.1.1997 threatened that he had got the mutation No. 1041, dated 18.9.1996 attested in his favour of Khasra No. 787, measuring 1-16 bighas and qua rest of the land, the mutation was attested in favour of the plaintiff, defendants No. 2 to 4 on the basis of forged and false documents of late Smt. Duri Devi, as such, the said mutation being wrong, illegal, null and void deserves to be set aside.