NIRMAL KUMAR Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by Sohan Lal plaintiff seeking declaration that the suit land is owned and possessed by him as successor after the death of his father Jaishi Ram and Will alleged to have been executed by his father dated 12.11.1979 is forged and fictitious and further claiming consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and in the alternative a suit for possession was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendant Des Raj stands allowed and the plaintiff is in second appeal. The plaintiff has died and the appeal is being prosecuted by his legal representatives Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, contends that the first appellate Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence in respect of the Will and wrong inferences has been drawn which are not supported by facts proved on record. It is further stated that there was no reason given in the Will for depriving the natural heirs to succeed to the property and the Will is further shrouded by suspicious circumstances and beneficiary had taken a leading role in getting the Will executed in his favour. Learned Counsel had taken me through the statements of the marginal witnesses of the Will as well as through contents of the Will in support of his arguments.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, in reply has adopted the same reasoning as are projected by the first appellate Court in the impugned judgment. It is further being argued that the deceased was living with the defendant and his family and was being looked after and cared for by them and the plaintiff, though being his son had never cared to attend his father and for that reasons he was deprived of the suit property.