GEETA Vs. KHILWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dtd. 11/3/2016 passed by the trial court whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as 'defendants') before the learned trial court, which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer for its final adjudication. In the suit it was stated by the plaintiff that the property in dispute, details of which are mentioned in para-1 of the plaint, belonged to late Shri Jagannath (father-in-law of defendant no.1 as well as plaintiff and grandfather of defendant no.2), who has given it to the plaintiff through a will executed on 18/8/2001, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ajmer on 21/8/2001. Late Shri Jagannath died on 17/9/2002 at Ajmer and after his death the plaintiff became the sole owner and title holder of the suit property. It was further alleged that the defendant No.2 son of the defendant No.1 is having illegal encroachment over the property in dispute for which they have no right and on asking by the plaintiff to the defendants to vacate the suit property the defendants vehemently denied and threatened to destroy/damage the suit property and to alienate the same.

(3.) After notices being served, the defendants appeared before the learned trial court and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was stated in the written statement that after marriage, the defendant No.1 became part of the family and having title over the property in dispute and is residing in the said property. It was also stated that the defendants as well as the plaintiff are members of one unit and hence the defendants are having valid and legal right and title in the suit property. It was also stated that the defendant No.1 and her son are residing in the property which she received from her father-in-law and the plaintiff is only residing in the suit property whereas the defendants are regularly and continuously using the suit property. It was further stated that the alleged will by which the plaintiff is claiming her right in the suit property does not belong to the suit property because in the will it has been mentioned by the executant of the will that in the eventuality of his death, her daughter-in-law Geeta would reside in the property, in such circumstances no one is having right to restrain the defendant. It was also stated that the executant of the will ShriJagannath during his life time had distributed/partitioned his property in favour of all his sons.