GURDEV SINGH Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the plaintiff has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No.45/1 of 1997, titled as Naraini Devi Versus Smt. Kranti Kaur, decided on 11.05.2005 and judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment in Civil Appeal No.53 of 2005, titled as Smt. Kranti Kaur . Versus Smt. Naraini Devi and others, decided on 12.09.2007, vide which learned trial Court decreed the suit for declaration filed by plaintiff Naraini Devi and thereafter, learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by present respondent Smt. Kranti Kaur against the same.

(2.) Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that predecessor-?in-?interest of the present respondents namely Smt. Naraini Devi, filed a suit for declaration against the predecessor-?in-?interest of the present appellants, to the effect that plaintiff was owner-?in-?possession of the land comprised of khewat/khatouni No.29/29, khasra No.133, measuring 7.16 bighas, situated in village Garnal, in which deceased Bamku, mother of the parties, had 15 th share out of 39th shares and the land comprised of khewat/khatouni No.140/145/146, khasra No.134, measuring 1-?4 bighas, situated in village Manwa and plot No.57, situated in Indira Colony, Bilaspur, H.P. is jointly owned and possessed with the defendant to the extent of half share each (hereinafter to be . referred as the suit land).

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that her mother Smt. Ramku died on 25.07.1990. She was residing with plaintiff and her last rites were also performed by plaintiff. Defendant never maintained Smt. Ramku during her lifetime as she was residing with her husband at Shimla, whereas deceased Ramku was residing with the plaintiff in Diara Sector at Bilaspur. Defendant and her husband, who were educated and clever people, prepared a forged document of Will allegedly executed by deceased Ramku in favour of the defendant. The same was got registered by them in the office of Sub-?Registrar, Sadar. On the strength of the same, in the revenue record, defendant got herself recorded as owner-?in-?possession of the suit property. All this was done at the back of the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff was not correctly appreciated by the Sub-?Registrar and order of the Sub-?Registrar passed in favour of the defendant was also illegal and void. It was further the case of the plaintiff that defendant took advantage . that plaintiff was a poor lady and was threatening to oust her from the suit property. Defendant contested the case of the plaintiff and took the stand that Ramku was residing with her at Shimla. According to her, when Ramku fell ill, she came to Bilaspur and she died at Bilaspur. Defendant denied that Ramku was maintained and looked after by plaintiff or her last rites were performed by plaintiff. As per defendant, Ramku had executed a valid Will in her favour in lieu of the services rendered by defendant and her husband to Ramku. Further, as per defendant she was rightly recorded as owner-? in-?possession of the suit land in the revenue record and plaintiff had no right to agitate the correctness of the Will.