PREM LAL Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, stands directed, by the appellant herein, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts rendered by both the learned courts below, wherethrough, the plaintiffs' suit for rendition, of, the espoused decree for declaration, along with consequential relief, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number, and, against the defendant, hence, stood decreed. The aggrieved therefrom defendant has through the instant appeal, strived, to beget reversal of the verdicts concurrently pronounced against him.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the one Smt. Suharu, wd/o Sh. Musaddi was owner in possession of the land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that said Smt. Suharu had executed a registered Will dated 24.6.1994 in his favour and by virtue of this Will he has become owner in possession of the suit land. But the revenue authorities have wrongly ignored the Will executed by deceased Smt. Suharu in his favour and sanctioned mutation No.408 dated 30.5.1998 in favour of the defendant without proof of Will alleged to have been executed in favour of the defendant. According to him, he along with his family members had been serving and maintaining the deceased since the year 1993-94 till her death on 31.1.1998. The defendant being close neighbour of the deceased also used to come to her house in the presence of the plaintiff to extend his sympathy towards deceased. The deceased was seriously ill since May, 1997, and, her condition had become worse in the month of July, 1997 and thereafter she could not recover from the disease. When the wife of the plaintiff had gone to Shimla to meet the plaintiff who is in Govt. service, she kept the deceased under the care of the defendant, who was in good terms with the plaintiff. On return from Shimla, the wife of the plaintiff found that the condition of the deceased was more serious. The defendant told her that he had taken the deceased to Arki in Doli for treatment as her condition was not good. Thereafter the plaintiff and his wife attended, served and maintained the deceased and also spent thousands of rupees to repair her house and improve her barren land. The deceased never wanted to make will in favour of the defendant and the subsequent will, if any, in the possession of the defendant has been procured by way of fraud and tricks and as such the same is void.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit, and, filed separate written statement to the plaint, wherein he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, the defendant has pleaded that he has become owner in possession of the suit land, on the basis of Will, dated 21.8.1997 executed by deceased Suharu, in his favour, and, as such mutation No. 408 has been rightly sanctioned in his favour. He has denied, if the plaintiff, and, his family members had been serving the deceased and pleaded that he had been serving the deceased and had also performed her last rites and ceremonies. He has denied the rest of the averments of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.