CHANDER DEV Vs. ROSHAN LAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2005 dated 29.6.2007 vide which, learned appellate court while upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Manali in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2004/148 of 2000 dated 18.10.2005, dismissed the appeal filed against the same by the appellants.

(2.) This appeal was admitted on 5.12.2008, on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that a suit was filed by respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as "the plaintiffs") to the effect that suit land measuring 17-8- 5 bighas which was owned and possessed by Smt. Kamla was inherited after her death by plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendants No.1 and 4 in equal shares as absolute owners thereof. Smt. Kamla was widow of Sh. Narain Dass who was real brother of the father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 4. As per plaintiffs, they along with defendants No.1 and 4 and their father Lal Dass and Narain Dass and Kamla Devi lived jointly and constituted a joint family. As per plaintiffs, Kamla Devi lived with them and defendants No.1 and 4 and it was only the plaintiffs who rendered their services and maintained her and also cultivated the suit land. Kamla Devi died intestate on 14.11.1997 and her last rites were performed by defendant No.4. Thereafter the suit property was inherited by plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 4 in equal shares being heirs of the deceased and thereafter they became owners in possession of the suit land. As per plaintiffs, defendant No.1 was a clever person and with his ulterior motive to grab the shares of plaintiffs in connivance with revenue officials and defendant No.2, he managed the mutation of deceased Kamla Devi behind the back of the plaintiff in his favour and in favour of defendant No.2 which was wrong and illegal. Further as per plaintiffs, since the last week of July, 2000, defendant No.1 started proclaiming himself that he was the sole heir of deceased Kamla Devi where-after plaintiffs made inquiries which revealed that said defendant behind their back and without any notice to them had managed the attestation of mutation of the suit land in his own name and in the name of defendant No.2 on the basis of one bogus Will. According to plaintiffs, Kamla Devi died intestate and she had not executed any Will nor there was any occasion for her to execute the same. According to plaintiffs, Will dated 24.1.1994 was bogus and fictitious and the same had been set up and forged by defendants No.1 and 2 with an ulterior motive to grab the share of plaintiffs in connivance with the scribe and marginal witnesses after the death of Kamla Devi. It was further the case of plaintiffs that Mutation No. 1294 was illegal, void and inoperative and plaintiffs were not bound by the same. On these bases that the suit was filed by plaintiffs.