LALMAN Vs. HIMMAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 8.6.2010 rendered by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal no. 64/2008. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration. According to the averments made in the plaint, land comprised of Khewat and Khatatuni No. 85/125, Khasra No. 625/33, 41, 42 and 43 Kitas 4, measuring 6-19-13 Bighas situate at Mauja Dhangu Illaqa Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi was owned and possessed by Niki Devi who died on 18.10.1997. She died issueless. She was grandmother of the parties. She was looked after by the parties to the suit. She executed a registered Will Ext. PW-2/A in favour of the parties on 30.6.1975. Plaintiff came to know that the defendant has got recorded himself to be exclusive owner-in-possession of the suit property on the basis of judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge, Court No. I, Mandi on 31.5.1993. Suit was filed on false and frivolous grounds claiming himself to be exclusive owner-in-possession by way of adverse possession and got filed written statement on behalf of Niki Devi, admitting his claim in the suit whereas suit property was cultivated by both the parties. Written statement got filed by the defendant in earlier suit was a forged document that he was owner-in-possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge was result of forgery and fraud played by the defendant and same was liable to be declared null and void and not binding upon the parties. Mutation no. 357 was also wrong.

(2.) Suit was contested by the defendant. It was denied by the defendant that the Will was executed on 30.6.1975. According to the averments made in the written statement, plaintiff was serving at Shimla from the very beginning, so the question of cultivating the suit property of Niki Devi and rendering service to her, did not exist. He denied that he has filed forged written statement, on the basis of which he was declared owner-in-possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession by the Sub Judge, Mandi.

(3.) Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandi on 18.7.2001 and on 5.9.2003. Suit was dismissed on 12.6.2008. Plaintiff filed an appeal. Learned District Judge, dismissed the same on 8.6.2010. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.