KIRAN ANAND LALL, J. - (1.) BY this judgment, I will be disposing of a Regular Second Appeal of Devi Ram plaintiff-appellant and the cross-objections of Shanti Devi defendant-respondent. Learned first appellate court had accepted appeal of Shanti Devi-defendant against the decretal of suit by trial Court and dismissed the suit but while doing so, it also recorded a finding that the defendant-respondent was also not entitled to inherit any share in the property left by Smt. Badami.
(2.) IN the suit, plaintiff had claimed a declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute, due to being legal heir of Smt. Badami and also on the basis of a Will made by her in his favour on 7.5.1946 "in a partition File No. 20 decided on 7.5.1946". He had also claimed consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession over the land. Pedigree-table of the plaintiff, as given in the plaint, was as under :- It was pleaded in the plaint that defendant was not related to Badami, in any way, and therefore, she had no concern with her inheritance. But she had fraudulently got sanctioned mutation (bearing No. 1252) of Smt. Badami's inheritance in her favour, to the extent of 1/4th share, on or about 16.10.1962. This mutation came to the notice of the plaintiff just before the filing of suit. It was, therefore, pleaded that on the basis of such illegal mutation, defendant had no right to dispute plaintiff's title in the land in dispute.
(3.) SUIT was contested by the defendant denying all the averments made in the plaint. According to her, the mutation was validly sanctioned. In the alternative, she claimed that she had become owner of the suit land by adverse possession.;