SITA DEVI Vs. JARMO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff -appellants have come up in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dismissing their suit. The suit was initially dismissed by the Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Chamba, vide judgment and decree dated 26.6.1991 and the appeal filed by them met with the same fate in the Court of the learned District Judge, Chamba, vide judgment and decree dated 23.6.1992.

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiffs - appellants for declaration and possession on the pleadings that the suit land, fully described in the plaint, was owned and possessed by one Raghu -father of the plaintiff No. 1 Sita Devi, the proform a defendant No.3 Maina and the husband of plaintiff No.2 Nichanu. He had died one year prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind his legal representatives i.e. both the plaintiffs and the defendant No.3 as his legal heirs. The case of the plaintiffs -appellants was that the defendant No.2 Kablu, a complete stranger, in connivance with the father of the defendant No.l Jai Dayal forged and fabricated a will alleged to have been executed by Raghu deceased in favour of the defendant No. l. Mutation was got attested wrongly on 21.1.1988 which is not binding on the plaintiffs -appellants having been attested on the basis of fictitious will as the deceased Raghu was not competent to execute the will in favour of the defendant No. l since he was not capable enough as he used to remain ill. It was also pleaded that the suit land being ancestral no will could be execute -5 regarding the same. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The defendants No. l and 2 in their written statement took up a plea that the defendant No. 2 is the widow of deceased Raghu and she along with her husband Raghu had executed a joint will which was legal and valid in favour of the defendant No. l as both the executants were in sound disposing mind and were competent to do so. It was further pleaded that the defendant No. l is the adopted son of deceased Raghu and that the defendant No.2 is the widow of deceased Raghu. It was denied that the plaintiff No.2 is the widow of deceased Raghu. In her written statement, the defendant No. 3 pleaded hat the will was legal and thus valid.