CHANDO Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2006 passed by the learned Addition District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 99-J/05/04, have filed the instant regular second appeal.

(2.) The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants/ appellants wherein it was averred that they were owners in possession of 1/3rd share of the land described in the plaint stating that the land was earlier recorded to be owned and possessed by one Shero son of Shyama who was grand maternal father of the plaintiffs. It had been averred that Shero had one daughter Thakri Devi and the plaintiffs are sons and daughters of Smt. Thakri Devi who has already died, they being Rajput by caste and governed by the agricultural custom of Kangra District had become owners and the suit land could not have been alienated by Shero by way of Will, sale, gift or any other manner except for legal necessity. It had been averred that Shero was the last holder of the suit property and the defendants without the consent and knowledge of Shero got a Will dated 30.03.1972 executed in their favour and mutation in that respect was also got attested after the death of Shero. It had been alleged that the Will was the result of fraud, coercion and was not binding upon the plaintiffs. It had also been averred that Shero was big landlord having sufficient means of livelihood. The defendants are trying to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and are proclaiming themselves to be owners. Thereby the suit for declaration was filed seeking declaration that they have become owners. It had also been averred that the suit was earlier filed titled as Girdhari versus Chand in the Court of Ld. Sub Judge, Jawali but the same was withdrawn with permission to file afresh on the same cause of action. The defendants despite asking them time and again to admit the claim of plaintiffs had not bothered to pay heed to the requests of plaintiffs, hence, the suit.