(1.) The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff"), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 09.04.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., Camp at Nalagarh, in Civil Appeal No. 9-NL/13 of 2006, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 25.10.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 185/1 of 2001 was affirmed, wherein suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit against respondent No. 1, Kartaro (whose name now stands deleted) and Maya Devi, since deceased (hereinafter to be called as "the defendants"), seeking declaration that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the land measuring 2 bighas and 4 biswas, bearing Khasra No. 617/56, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 89/98, H.B. No. 161, situated in Village Sanerh, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter to be called as "suit land") and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same, with a consequential relief of restraining the defendants permanently from interfering or alienating the suit land. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 2 was married with Sant Ram and plaintiff was born out of the said wedlock. Defendant No. 2 and plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 49/1 of 1995 on 09.02.1995 in the Court of Sub-Judge Nalagarh, claiming themselves to be daughter and wife of Sant Ram for maintenance, which was compromised on 18.05.1996 in the Lok Adalat, wherein Sant Ram admitted the plaintiff to be owner-in-possession of 20/44 share out of three suit land and defendant No. 2 relinquished her claim in the suit land and she also admitted that she has got re-married with Ram Asra and as such, defendant No. 2 is not the wife/widow of late Sh. Sant Ram. As per the plaintiff, Sant Ram died on 20.06.2001 intestate and defendant No. 1 is sister of the deceased, therefore, the plaintiff being the only legal heir of the deceased Sant Ram has inherited 24/44 share out of the suit land and as such, she is absolute owner-inpossession of the suit land. The defendants are strangers to the suit land, but they are threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and they are also threatening to alienate the suit land, to which they have no right.
(3.) In written statement, it has been admitted that defendant No. 1 is sister of deceased Sant Ram and defendant No. 2 was earlier married to Sant Ram and thereafter she re-married Ram Asra. It has been further admitted that the plaintiff has instituted suit No. 49/1 of 1995 on 09.02.1995, which was compromised on 18.05.1996, wherein deceased Sant Ram admitted the plaintiff to be owner-in-possession of 20/44 share out of the suit land measuring 1 bigha. It has been denied that the plaintiff is sole owner-in-possession of the suit land after the death of Sant Ram and it has been also denied that defendant No. 1 is stranger to the suit land, but it has been stated that deceased Sant Ram was being looked after by defendant No. 1 during his life time, as defendant No. 2 has deserted the deceased more than 20 years back by contracting marriage with Ram Asra and as such the deceased has executed a Will of his property, i.e. share in the suit land, measuring 1 bigha and 4 biswas on 10.01.2001 and defendant No. 1 has also entered into possession of the suit land as co-sharer after the death of Sant Ram, who was real brother of defendant No. 1. The mutation regarding the Will has also been attested on 11.09.2001 and as such the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the share of deceased Sant Ram in the suit land.