- (1.) C.M. No. 7677-C of 2014 Heard.
(2.) For the reasons stated in the Civil Miscellaneous Application, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, delay in refiling of the appeal is condoned. Civil Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, disposed of. Regular Second Appeal No. 3317 of 2014 Unsuccessful plaintiff (appellant herein) is in regular second appeal to assail the correctness of judgment and decree dated 13.09.2013 whereby learned Additional District Judge, Nuh (appellate court, for short) has dismissed appeal brought by him to challenge judgment and decree dated 22.02.2013 vide which learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur Jhirka (Mobile Court at Punhana) has dismissed the civil suit brought by him to seek declaration that judgment and decree dated 04.09.2004 in Civil Suit No. 150 of 2004, Pushpa Devi versus Baldev etc. was illegal and null and void being result of fraud and misrepresentation, Will dated 07.11.2003 was illegal having been forged and fabricated by its scribe in collusion with the witnesses, consequent mutation was also illegal and he was owner in possession of the suit property, as fully described in the heading of the plaint, to the extent of one fifth share; and a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants (respondents herein) from alienating the suit property to the extent of his share therein.
(3.) Appellant's case before the trial court was that he and respondents No. 2 to 3, namely Ranbir Singh, Dinesh Kumar are sons and respondent No. 4, namely Mithlesh is daughter of respondent No. 1, namely Ram Singh. Pushpa Devi, mother of the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 4 and wife of respondent No. 1 was owner in possession of the suit property. She died intestate on 29.02.2004. Posthumous Pushpa Devi her estate was inherited in equal shares by the appellant and the respondents. On 17.08.2007 the appellant learnt that first respondent, vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.2004, got himself declared as owner in possession of the suit property on the strength of a Will dated 07.11.2003 of Pushpa Devi, which was never executed by her. It was alleged by the appellant that neither the original Will was produced nor was it proved as per provisions of law; he did not appear before the court; did not admit the claim put up on behalf of the first respondent; and his signatures were obtained on the pretext of obtaining "Vakalatnama" for the purpose of an eviction petition.;