LESH RAM Vs. TEJ RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed by the aggrieved plaintiff against the concurrent verdicts pronounced by both the learned Courts below, whereunder, both dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration, for, setting aside, the, Will executed by deceased Bhup Singh qua his estate, vis-a-vis, the defendants.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Sh. Lesh Ram plaintiff has filed suit for declaration with a consequential relief of possession averring therein that late Sh. Bhup Singh was grand father of the plaintiff, who was the joint co-owner in possession to the extent of 1/8th share out of the land comprised in Khewat No.25, Khatauni No.38, Khasra Nos. Kitta 6 measuring 30-2-1 bighas, situated at Mohal Tihri No. HB 408, Illaqua Uttarsal, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. It has been averred that the father of the plaintiff one Sobha Ram, was the only son of Sh. Bhup Singh, who had predeceased the grand father of the plaintiff. The grandfather of the plaintiff was having his property in Mhal Sairi, Sub-Tehsil Aut and mohal Tihri, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi, H.P. He had already disposed of his property of Mohal Sair during his life time. The father of the plaintiff had died when the plaintiff was about three years old and after the death of the his father Sobha Ram, the mother of the plaintiff eloped with some other person and settled at some other place, while the plaintiff was brought up by his maternal grand father. It is further pleaded that when the plaintiff attained majority, he was granted Nautor land measuring 0-4-0 bighas in Mohal Sairi, Sub-Tehsil Aut, upon which the plaintiff had constructed his residential house and is residing along with his family there. The grand father of the plaintiff was having knowledge about the plaintiff, but he did not call him to his house nor honoured him despite the fact that the plaintiff was the only legal heir of his grand father, entitled to inherit him after his death. It is further pleaded that the grandfather had died at village Tihri on 9.9.2005 and on getting information of his death the plaintiff went to Tihri, performed the funeral ceremonies of his grandfather. It is further pleaded that after performing ceremony of his grand father, the plaintiff took possession of the suit land of his grandfather but the defendants on 15.9.2005 forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and disclosed that the deceased had bequeathed he suit land in their favour and they are owners of the suit land. It is further pleaded that the defendants claimed that the deceased has executed will in favour of the defendants. It is further pleaded that after going through the said Will No. 202 of 28.1994, it is revealed that the Will is the result of mis-representation undue influence, coercion, fraud and deception practised by the propounder upon the testator. It is further pleaded that the Will is a forged, faked and fictitious document, having been procured by the defendants after exercising their undue influence, coercion, mis-representation of facts etc. which is also shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the suit land is the ancestral joint Hindu Family and coparcenary property devolved upon the testator from his ancestors. It is further pleaded that the deceased was not competent to alienate the same being ancestral coparcenary property.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statements, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability and limitation. On merits, it is pleaded that the Bhup Singh was owner in possession to the extent of 1/8th share of the land. It is further pleaded that the Will No.202 of 22.8.1994 is correct and is not the result of mis-representation, undue influence coercion, fraud and deception. It is further pleaded that the deceased has executed Will with his free consent and in good state of health in the presence of the marginal witnesses. It is further pleaded that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land.