BHANDARU RAM Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction wherein it was claimed that the parties i. e. plaintiff, defendants and proforma defendants are sons, daughters and widow of late Sukh Ram, who expired on 1 04. 2001. It was pleaded that late Sukh Ram was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 222/204, Khewat-Khatauni No. 67/74, measuring 3-14 bighas to the extent of 3 shares out of total share in Village Behal Kandela. The land comprised in Khasra Nos. 169/91, 241/95 and Khewat-Khatauni No. 82/94, measuring 3-14 bighas was exclusively owned and possessed by late Sukh Ram in Village Bamta and land comprised in Khasra No. 136 (plot No. 24 A), Khewat-Khatauni No. 31min/409, measuring 84-84 (Sq. Mtrs. ), situated in Up-Muhal, main market Bilaspur, H. P. It was further pleaded that after the death of Sukh Ram, the plaintiff along with defendants and proforma defendants inherited his property in equal shares and the same was divided between the parties in presence of respectable persons of the area and thereafter both the parties are in possession of their respective shares. It was also averred that in May, 2001, the defendants interfered in the possession of the plaintiff and threatened that defendant No. 1 had become owner thereof on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by late Sukh Ram in her favour.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locusstandi and collusion of plaintiff with defendant No. 3, were raised. On merits, the contents of the plaint were admitted only to the extent that late Sukh Ram was owner in possession of the suit property. However, it was denied that plaintiff is son of late Sukh Ram. It was submitted that even though Sukh Ram, defendant No. 1 were natural father and mother of the plaintiff, but Sukh Ram along with his wife had given him (plaintiff) by way of family adoption to late Sihnu and his wife Smt. Chando when the plaintiff was hardly 20 days old. Therefore, the plaintiff being adopted son of Sihnu Ram had no right, title or interest over the property left behind by Sukh Ram of which defendant No. 1 was the sole owner in possession on the basis of the last and valid Will dated 16. 11. 1989 executed by late Sukh Ram. It was further averred that she transferred property in favour of her sons i. e. defendants No. 1 and 2.