MUNSHI RAM Vs. DILA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants -defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1985 dated 4 5 -1987, whereby appeal of the plaintiff -respondent has been allowed and consequently his suit has been decreed for declaration and possession as a consequential relief, which was earlier dismissed by Senior Sub -Judge, Mandi vide his judgment in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1978 dated 29 -6 -1985.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), Dila Ram (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and proforma respondents No, 2 to 6 are the sons, widow and daughters of deceased Shri Hira. According to the plaintiff, his father Hira son of Sadhu was owner in possession of the land as detailed in the plaint i. e. 2/3rd shares of the said land which measure 68 -15 -19 Bighas situate in Muhal Beri, Hadbast No. 178, Illaqa Bagra Tehsil Sadar District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) which was ancestral. With a purpose to deprive the plaintiff of his right of inheritance from the suit land, a Will dated 10 -12 -1971 was stated to have been executed by Hira, whereby he willed away the suit land in favour of defendants No, 1 to 3 i. e. the appellants, this was the result of fraud, coercion, undue influence and mis -representation of facts made by defendants No. 1 to 3 solely with the object to completely oust and deprive the plaintiff of his right of inheritance and according to him, the deceased was not in sound disposing mind and, as such, the plaintiff is not bound by the said Will. Besides this, plaintiff further pleaded that the deceased could not have legally made the Will in question. Hira was stated to be 65 years of age and besides having no sound disposing mind was also old and infirm person. Case of the plaintiff further was that he alongwith the defendants was maintaining their deceased father. Shri Hira is stated to have died on 13 -8 -1977.

(3.) In the aforesaid background, plaintiff had prayed to declare the Will as null and void qua the rights of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had been ousted from joint possession, he has prayed for the same in the decree. On the basis of the will in question mutation No. 181 was sanctioned on 19 -1 -1978 by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, The same was also sought to be declared as null and void