Sandeep Sharma, J. - (1.)Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.05.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi in Civil Appeal No.30/2002, 153/2004, affirming therein judgment and decree dated 18.01.2002, passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Chachiot at Gohar in Civil Suit No.152/98, whereby suit for declaration having been filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.
(2.)Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit against Ramu, predecessor-in- interest of respondents No.1 to 5 and Kalu, respondent No.6 (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') seeking declaration to the effect that Will dated 11.4.1996 executed by deceased Suramu in favour of the defendants is null and void and the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land as detailed in Para-2 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') with a consequential relief of restraining the defendants from interfering or dis-possessing the plaintiff from the suit land or alienating the suit land and in the alternative seeking possession of the suit land. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is the son of the deceased Narainu and grandson of the deceased Suramu, who was owner in possession of the suit land. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property was ancestral property, which was to be inherited by the father of the plaintiff and thereafter by the plaintiff according to Hindu Succession Act. It is averred by the plaintiff that the defendants, by playing fraud, approached Suramu, grandfather of the plaintiff, and got a Will executed in their favour. It is further averred that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to execute the impugned Will and the contents of the Will were not explained to him. Moreover, no witnesses of the locality were present at the time of execution of the Will dated 11.4.1996 and hence the impugned Will is null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants, by playing fraud, got bequeathed the suit land in their favour depriving the plaintiff of his right of succession and the plaintiff is still owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants, under the garb of Will, are now interfering in the possession of the plaintiff.
(3.)The defendants resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendants have denied that the plaintiff is son of Narainu, but have stated that the mother of the plaintiff; namely Jethi; brought the plaintiff with her to the house of Narainu, when Narainu had brought her to his house and no marriage took place between Narainu and Jethi. It has been admitted by the defendants that the deceased Suramu was owner in possession of the suit land but have stated that the suit land has been inherited by the defendants through a Will and now the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. The defendants have denied that the suit land was ancestral, but stated that it was self-acquired property of the deceased Narainu. It has also been denied that the defendants have played fraud upon the deceased Narainu, but stated that the Will was duly executed by the deceased Narainu in favour of the defendants in a sound state of mind voluntarily and the defendants were serving the deceased. It is averred that the plaintiff after the marriage started residing in the house of his in-laws and he never served the deceased. Defendants denied that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff. It is also denied that the impugned Will is null and void.