RAM PARTAP Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above second appeal has been filed by the Defendants in Case No. 43/1 of 1986 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Nalagarh, Solan District, against the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 62/NL/13 of 1992 dated 10.1.1994 whereunder the learned First appellate Judge, while reversing and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge decreed the suit filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs, as prayed for.

(2.) The Plaintiffs-Respondents filed the suit seeking for declaration to the effect that the Will dated 12.6.1979 be declared null and void, it being not a genuine document and not executed by one Jeet Ram in favour of the Defendants and for the relief of injunction restraining the Defendants from claiming right, title or interest in the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 7/33, total plots 7, measuring 11 Bighas 4 Biswas as per Jamabandi copy for the year 1983-84, situated in village Dol, Paragana Nalagarh and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 53/81 bearing Khasra Nos. 122(5-5), 123(1-3), 199(0-9), 200(0-9), 201(0-17), 202(2-00), 203(2-1), 268(0-3), 301(1-03), 308(1-03) and 323(0-4), land measuring 14 Bighas 17 Biswas, situated in village Ambwala, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, as per entries in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). The case of the Plaintiffs was that they were daughters of late Jeet Ram, who indisputably is the absolute owner of the property, that the said Jeet Ram was joint owner to the extent of 1/2 share with his brother Hari Ram, the father of the Defendants and that the deceased Jeet Ram was married to Smt. Dwarki, the mother of the Plaintiffs and out of their wedlock the Plaintiffs were born and after the death of their father Jeet Ram, they applied for attestation of the mutation of his estate in their favour and on coming to know that the Defendants had already got entered the mutation in respect of the estate in their name on the basis of Will purporated to have been executed in their favour by Jeet Ram on12.6.1979, they were constrained to file the suit for the reliefs, as noticed above. The Defendants/Appellants contained by disputing the very claim of the Plaintiffs that they were the daughters of late Jeet Ram, in addition to disputing also the fact that Dwarki the mother of the Plaintiffs was ever married to Jeet Ram. It was the plea on behalf of the Defendants that the mother of the Plaintiffs was initially married to one Dasondi and later on she settled with one Ram Chand and the Plaintiffs were born after her marriage with said Ram Chand. Besides, the claim of the Defendants was that they looked after Jeet Ram and maintained by them and being pleased with their services the Will was executed by giving the entire property in their favour. The Defendants also pleaded that in a suit filed by Must. Attri the sister of the previous husband of Dwarki by name Dasondi in the year 1958, the mother of the Plaintiffs Dwarki took the stand that she has not contracted any marriage with Jeet Ram and that she has not given by birth from his loins. On that score, the Defendants claimed that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief, as prayed for, and that they are estopped from filing the suit for the relief of the nature in question.

(3.) On the above claims and counter-claims, the suit came to be tried, and by a judgment and decree dated 11.9.1992, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were the daughters of late Jeet Ram. Similarly, the claim of the Defendants projected on the basis of the Will was also rejected holding that the Defendants had not proved the execution of the Will by Jeet Ram in their favour and held the said issue framed in the suit, against the Defendants.