LEELA DEVI Vs. NEELMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, dated 2-1-1995, vide which findings of learned Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu, dated 27-8-1992 decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for possession were reversed and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land detailed in the plaint alleging that one Arjungir was father of plaintiff and defendant who died sometime in 1965. His estate was inherited by the plaintiff, defendant and Smt. Maheshru his widow is in equal share. Smt. Maheshru his widow had not given birth to any child from the loins of Arjungir. The plaintiff and defendant had been born to Smt. Bal Dassi, the first wife of Arjungir who had predeceased her husband. It was alleged that after the death of her husband, Smt. Maheshru had executed a legal and final Will in favour of the plaintiff which was also registered on 21-9-1982. Smt. Maheshru died on 27-10-1988 and the mutation was attested in favour of both the parties in equal share and the defendant got mutation attested in his favour also without notice to the plaintiff. It was alleged that since the defendant was not entitled to any share as there was Will in favour of the plaintiff, she was entitled to the possession of the suit land. Defendant denied the execution of the Will. He pleaded that after the death of Arjungir, his father, he had been in adverse possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the plaintiff and others. The plaintiff had been married by Arjungir in Mandi District and had not been looking after the property. He also pleaded that Smt. Maheshru had executed her last Will on 18-9-1988 in favour of Diwan Chand son of the defendant and the mutation was, therefore, rightly sanctioned.

(3.) The suit was tried by the learned trial Court who allowed the application of the plaintiff for secondary evidence to prove the Will and the certified copy of the Will was proved from the office of Sub-Registrar. No issue was framed by the learned trial Court in regard to the second Will in favour of the son of defendant. It was also not proved in evidence. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the Will in favour of the plaintiff has been legally proved.