MAHADEVI Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dt. 30.01.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Misc. Case No. 51/2012, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the application of the appellant -plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit lands. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, it appears that the case has chequered history inasmuch as number of revenue proceedings and other proceedings were initiated by the appellant -plaintiff in respect of the suit lands, and after having lost in the said proceedings, the present suit has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff seeking declaration of her title, cancellation of sale deed dt. 29.05.2009 executed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, and for permanent injunction. It may be noted at this juncture, that the appellant was the daughter of the deceased Lallu Ram, who had allegedly executed the Will in her favour on 15.07.1982. However, according to the respondent No. 1, one another registered Will on 01.10.1984 was executed by the said Lallu Ram in his favour, he being an adopted son, and thereafter the said Lallu Ram having expired on 03.07.1991, a mutation was entered in favour of the respondent No. 1 on 23.07.1991. The said mutation was opened on the basis of the Will dt. 01.10.1984 executed in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the deceased Lallu Ram. It is pertinent to note that though the appellant -plaintiff had challenged the said mutation entry before the revenue authorities, she did not challenge the genuineness of Will allegedly executed in favour of the respondent No. 1 at the relevant time, and it was only when the High Court in the Special Appeal passed the order observing that it would be open for the appellant to file the civil suit for determination of her rights and genuineness of the Will, the suit has been filed. It is also required to be noted that one separate application filed by the appellant -plaintiff seeking probate of Will dt. 15.07.1982 allegedly executed by late Shri Lallu Ram in her favour, was dismissed by the competent Court. Further, one another revenue suit seeking declaration of her khatedari rights in respect of the suit lands was also filed, however was dismissed by the revenue Court.

(2.) THUS , the present suit filed by the appellant -plaintiff appears to be grossly time barred, inasmuch as though it had come to the knowledge of the appellant -plaintiff in the year 1991 itself that a registered Will dt. 1.10.1984 was executed by the deceased Lallu Ram in favour of the respondent No. 1, she did not prefer to challenge the genuineness of the will for about 11 years. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly observed that the appellant -plaintiff had failed to establish any prima facie case in her favour. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It is needless to say that any alienation or sell made by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in respect of the suit lands pending the suit shall be subject to the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.