- (1.) Plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, Faridabad whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the same was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the plaintiffs/appellants and respondents/defendants were owners in possession of the agricultural land detailed in para no.2 of the plaint. In the above mentioned land Medi Ram s/o of Bhure Lal predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs/appellants and defendants/respondents was owner to the extent of 1/5 th share. Medi Ram had four sons and a daughter. Two of his sons namely Joginder Singh and Lal Chand and the daughter Smt. Bhagwati Devi are the plaintiffs/appellants whereas the defendants/respondents are the other son Virender Singh and the three Lrs of the fourth son Attar Singh in the dispute relating to the property left behind by Medi Ram. That Medi Ram in lieu of his share became owner in possession of the property in dispute. Apart from the property mentioned in para no.2 of the plaint Medi Ram was also owner to the extent of share in the property mentioned in para no.3 of the plaint and owner in possession of the property mentioned in para no.4A to 4E of the plaint. The agricultural land detailed in para no.2 & 3 of the plaint and the residential property detailed in para no.4A to 4E of the plaint are the ancestral property of the parties and that from the earning of this ancestral property, the property detailed in para no.4 B of the plaint was purchased and this way the entire property detailed in para no.2,3 & 4 are the ancestral properties of the parties. The plaintiffs further contended that Medi Ram son of Bhure Lal was Jat by caste and being an agriculturist was governed by agricultural custom in the matter of alienation. That the suit property being ancestral property Medi Ram was not entitled to alienate the same in any manner whatsoever except for legal necessity. In the alternative plaintiffs have contended that otherwise also the parties are governed by Hindu Succession Act in the matter of succession of property and in case the parties are proved to be not governed by agricultural custom by application of Hindu Succession Act, the suit property being ancestral property, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to 1/5 th share each in the suit property.
(3.) As per plaintiffs the defendant nos.1 & 2 have propounded a Will dated 8.8.1995 allegedly executed by Medi Ram son of Bhure Lal in their favour which bears registration number 91 and registered before Sub Registrar, Ballabhgarh and as per the contents of the above mentioned Will, the property detailed in para no.2,3, 4B, 4D and 4E of the plaint was given to defendant nos.2 & 3. The said Will has been pleaded not to be a valid document as at the time of execution of this Will, Medi Ram was not in sound disposing state of mind and he was ailing in the months of July and August 1995. He was of feeble mind and week in physique and thus not able to understand anything, therefore, the document is not a valid one and is a result of forgery. It was also alleged that even otherwise Medi Ram was not competent to execute a Will qua the suit property as the same was ancestral in nature. It was further alleged that on the basis of said Will defendant nos.1 & 2 have got mutation sanctioned in their favour. Thus through the suit the plaintiffs have sought declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in joint possession to the extent of 3/5 share in the suit property and that the defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property.;