BESSI DEVI Vs. CHATRU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has come in appeal against judgment, decree dated 21-8-1999 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in C. A. No. 39 of 1998, reversing judgment, decree dated 22-6-1998 passed by learned Senior Sub-Judge, Lahaul Spitti at kullu, exercising powers of Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 172 of 1994.

(2.) The facts in brief as pleaded by the appellant is that she being the daughter of Dhani Ram is entitled to his estate as per her share along with respondents after the death of Dhani Ram on 2-3-1994. The further case of the appellant is that respondent No.1 is the daughter and respondent No.2 is widow of Dhani Ram.. The respondents in connivance with each other with a view to grab the property left by Dhani Ram have forged a Will dated 11-6-1990 allegedly executed by Dhani Ram and got mutation No. 1918 attested in their favour. In fact Dhani Ram had not executed any Will in favour of respondents. The respondents on the basis of alleged Will have started causing unlawful interference and threatened to dispossess the appellant from the joint possession over the suit land. The appellant has filed the suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in alternative for joint possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement and they have taken several preliminary objections such as locus standi of the appellant to file the suit, there is no cause of action to file the suit, the appellant is not the heir of Dhani Ram nor appellant is in possession of the suit land, the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands and she has suppressed the true and material facts from the Court. The objections of valuation and jurisdiction were also taken. On merits, the respondents have pleaded that appellant is not the daughter of Dhani Ram. Dhani Ram had executed a Will dated 11-6-1990 in favour of the respondents and the mutation No. 1918 has been rightly attested in their favour. In replication the appellant has denied the case of the respondents and re-asserted her case.