GURMEET KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant regular second appeal.

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

(3.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in possession of 1-10 bighas of land in khata khatauni No. 23 to 40, kite 9, measuring 108-12 bighas, khata khatauni No. 24/43, kite 3, measuring 3-17 bighas, khata khatauni No. 25/44, kite 2 measuring 10-8 bighas, situated in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Mauza Sainwala Mubarakpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur, H.P. on the basis of Will No. 27/2010 being executed by Ramesh Chand and mutation No. 838 dated 21.05.2010 being attested by A.C. Ist Grade qua his estate is wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of plaintiff. A relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing plaintiff was also sought. It was averred by the plaintiff that Ramesh Chand son of Bhakatawar Ram son of Gondi Ram, r/o village Khairi was co- owner in possession over 6 bighas of land comprised in khata Khatauni No. 23/40, kite 9, total land measuring 108-12 bighas, khata khatauni No. 24/43, kite 3, measuring 3-17 bighas and khata khatauni No. 25/44, kite 2, measuring 10-08 bighas situated in Mauza Sainwala Mubarakpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. He was married but his relationship with defendant No. 1 i.e. his wife was not good. Out of his marriage with defendant No. 1 two daughters i.e. defendants No. 2 and 3 also took birth. The defendant No. 1 had decided to leave the house of Ramesh Chand and settled at village Melion about 14 years ago whereafter Ramesh Chand was left alone and was taken care of by plaintiff who also looked after and cultivated his land. On 29.01.2010, Ramesh Chand requested plaintiff to take him to Paonta Sahib to execute the Will where he approached Shashi Pal Chaudhary, Advocate, who as per his instructions in the presence of witnesses Om Prakash and Rukamdeen being identified by Yogesh, Numberdar executed Will of his immovable property. He was physically and mentally fit at the time of execution of Will and accepted the contents of the Will after it was read over and explained to him and put his left hand thumb impression over the same. It was presented before Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib for attestation and registration on the very day who also explained full contents of Will to him who put his signature over it on 29.01.2010 but due to failure of electronic system, registration formalities were completed on 01.02.2010. Ramesh Chand died on 20.04.2010 and when the Will was presented for sanctioning of mutation of inheritance, it was attested only in favour of defendant. The plaintiff filed a revenue appeal against sanctioning of mutation but defendant became greedy and started threatening to disposses the plaintiff from the suit land or to alienate it in the last week of October, 2010. The cause of action thus accrued on 21.05.2010 when mutation No. 838 was attested in favour of defendants only and on 21.06.2010 when the revenue appeal was filed and lastly in the last week of October, 2010, when defendants threatened to dispossess plaintiff, hence the suit.