DHYAN CHAND Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri P.D. Goel, Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamsala. By means of impugned judgment and decree passed on 20-4-1996 in Civil Appeal No. 24-N/95 the appeal has been allowed and consequently the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class (I), Nurpur, in Civil Suit No. 417 of 1988, dated 16-5-1995 has been reversed by allowing the appeal of defendant No. 1 and consequently the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) Material facts of this case are short and are not in dispute. Chhaju Ram was the predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the suit. Smt. Savitri Devi-defendant No. 1 is the widow, whereas Dhyan Chand, plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 4, Rattan Chand, Kuldip Chand and Ashok Kumar are sons and Biaso Devi, Kailasho Devi and Kanta Devi are the daughters of late Shri Chhaju Ram. Deceased-Chhaju Ram, who owned sufficient immovable property in two villages situated in Tikka and Mauza Khasa, as well as Tikka Jhangarada, Mauza Raja Khasa, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effec that he is in joint ownership and possession in equal shares along with defendants and is entitled to remain in joint possession in ownership in future also with the defendants and the Will dated 24-12-1987 set up by defendant No. 1-Smt. Savitri Devi in his favour is invalid, wrong, illegal and against the facts and is fictitious document not binding on his rights and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property beyond their shares as per Hindu Succession Act and are not entitled to interfere in any manner in the share of the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Permanent injunction was also prayed for by the plaintiff against defendants restraining them from interfering in any manner in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff to the extent of his share in the suit land or from taking forcible possession, alternative prayer for possession was also prayed for.

(3.) This suit was resisted and contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement and propounded the Will dated 24-12-1987 (Ex. D-1) purported to have been executed by her husband late Shri Chhaju, whereas defendants Nos. 2 to 7 filed separate written statement, who admitted the execution of the Will by their deceased-father in favour of their mother i .e. defendant No. 1. Parties went to trial on the aforesaid pleading on the following issues framed by the trial Court :-