SATYENDRA Vs. PHULLAN
LAWS(UTN)-2013-4-17
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 23,2013

Satyendra Appellant
VERSUS
Phullan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Second Appeal, preferred under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1994, passed by Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1991, whereby said court has allowed said civil appeal, and judgment and decree dated 10.05.1990 passed by the trial court (Additional Civil Judge, Roorkee) in suit no. 29 of 1982 was set aside. The trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which is decreed by the first appellate court declaring the plaintiff as owner of the property in question. The first appellate court also decreed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff overthe property in suit afterthe same is delivered to her.
(2.) Heard learned counsel forthe parties and perused the lower courtrecord.
(3.) Brief facts, of the case, are that plaintiff Smt. Phullan @ Phulla (since died) filed the suit for declaration of rights over the property in question and also for the injunction against the defendants, with the pleadings that the plaintiff inherited the property detailed at the foot of the plaint as Schedule A, B, and C being daughter of Late Phool singh who had inherited the property from his father Jeevan. It is stated in the plaint that Phool Singh had two children through his first wife Gyan Devi namely plaintiff Phullan @ Phulla and one Surajbhan (deceased). It is further stated by the plaintiff that Smt. Gyan Devi (W/o Phool Singh) died about forty years (before filing of suit), Surajbhan died about thirty years and Phool Singh died about twenty five years before filing of the suit. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that before his death Phool singh kept one Chandi Devi with him (after death of his first wife Gyan Devi) through whom he had a son named Rajendra but he too died at the age of nine years. After death of Phool Singh initially name of minor Rajendra was entered into revenue records over property in suit but on the death of Rajendra name of Chandi Devi was recorded to which plaintiff filed objections before the Mutation authorities. On 28.09.1981 Chandi Devi was murdered. It is alleged by the plaintiff that she was murdered by the defendants no. 1 to 5 whereafter defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 got forged a Will purporting to have been executed by Chandi Devi which according to plaintiff is null and void. It is also pleaded in the plaint that proceedings under section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., were initiated in respect of property in question and SUPURDGAR (custodian) was given possession of the property in suit. Defendant no. 5 and 6 are said to be witnesses of the alleged forged Will and defendant no. 7 is the scribe of the Will.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.