SHYAM LAL Vs. NARDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 100 C.P.C against the judgment and decree, dated 1.7.2006, passed by the learned District Judge Solan, affirming the judgment and decree, dated 9.12.2005, of the learned Senior Sub Judge (Senior Division), Kandaghat, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction as against the defendant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land in suit, as described in the plaint, was owned and possessed by Smt.Krishani Devi. It was alleged that the plaintiff was nephew of Smt.Krishani Devi, who had executed a valid and registered Will, dated 5.9.1989, in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares bequeathing her entire moveable and immoveable property in favour of both the parties. It may be clarified that the defendant is the daughter of the deceased Krishani Devi. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the Will was executed by the deceased in favour of both the parties out of her love and affection since the plaintiff was maintaining Krishani Devi. It was also alleged that the last rites were performed by the plaintiff and both the plaintiff and defendant have succeeded to the estate of Smt.Krishani Devi on the basis of the Will and since the defendant is threatening to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, hence the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant denied that any valid Will was executed by the deceased in favour of the parties and it was pleaded that the Will, if any, is a forged and fabricated document, which has been prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with interested persons. It was also alleged that the deceased was suffering from mental deformity and was not possessing sound disposing mind. The defendant also pleaded that the deceased was being looked after and attended upon by the defendant since she was living with the defendant and her family members. It was denied that the plaintiff was serving the deceased. Defendant had also filed a counter claim claiming the relief of declaration that the defendant is owner in possession of the suit land having inherited it from the deceased.