SARDARI LAL Vs. BISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla [The High Court] dtd. 18/7/2016 in Regular Second Appeal (for short, RSA) No.475/2003, whereby, the second appeal of the defendants [Respondents herein] was allowed and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, affirming the decree passed by the Trial Court, was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) Predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, namely, Bhambo Devi wife of Chhajju, instituted Civil Suit No.51/1993 against Bishan Dass (Respondent No.1) [For short, R-1] and Ram Singh, who is represented by his legal representatives i.e., Respondent Nos.2 to 5 [For short, R-2 to R-5], for declaring plaintiff the sole owner and in possession of the suit schedule property left by her husband, late Chhajju Ram. Plaintiff also sought the relief of prohibitory injunction and, in the alternative, in the event of being found dispossessed, possession.

(3.) Plaint, in short, states as follows: Chhajju, the plaintiff's husband, was an illiterate agriculturist; he was the sole owner of the suit schedule property; he died intestate on 5/2/1992, leaving no issue; the plaintiff is his sole heir; defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property; yet, basis a forged will dtd. 6/11/1974, the defendants got the revenue records mutated in their favour vide mutation no.66 dtd. 14/8/1992; Chhajju never executed any will; the Will is an act of fraud / undue influence and as such void; besides, Chhajju had no reason to disinherit his wife (i.e., the plaintiff); the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property; cause of action arose when the defendants interfered in the possession of the plaintiff based on the mutation, and again when the defendants declined to admit the plaintiff's right over the suit schedule property.