JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla¹[The High Court] dated 18.07.2016 in Regular Second Appeal (for short, RSA) No.475/2003, whereby, the second appeal of the defendants²[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.

The Suit

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) ³[For short, R-1] and Ram Singh, who is represented by his legal representatives i.e., Respondent Nos.2 to 5⁴[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 05.02.1992, 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 dated 06.11.1974, the defendants got the revenue records mutated in their favour vide mutation no.66 dated 14.08.1992; 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.

4. Defendants contested the suit by claiming, inter alia, that though Chhajju was the owner of the suit schedule property, on 06.11.1974 he executed a registered will of his entire movable and immovable properties in favour of the defendants; the will was executed in a sound state of mind, out of love and affection and as a reward for the services rendered by them to the testator and the plaintiff, and they are still rendering service to the plaintiff by providing her food, residence and other necessities of life; besides, the plaintiff was throughout aware of the will and she raised no objection; in fact, the suit has been instituted at the instigation of her relatives, namely, Sri Ram Dass, Shri Surat Ram and Lakhu Ram, who want to grab the property by hook or crook; based on the will, mutation was sanctioned on 14.08.1992 in presence of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff raised no objection, rather she admitted the will; hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Facts on which there was no dispute

5. A close look at the pleadings would reflect that there is no challenge to the suit being instituted by the plaintiff and there is no lis between the parties on the following facts:

a) that the original owner of the suit schedule property was Chhajju Ram, who was an illiterate agriculturist; and

(b) Chhajju Ram died, leaving no issues, therefore the plaintiff, in absence of a testamentary disposition, would be the sole successor to the estate of late Chhajju Ram.

Main Issue before the Trial Court & the Evidence led

6. As the impugned judgment is of reversal, we will look at the main issue and the evidence led by the parties. Though multiple issues were framed by the Trial Court, the main issue was as regards execution of the will by Chhajju Ram in favour of the defendants. To prove execution of the will, the defendants produced three witnesses, namely:

(i) Ram Singh -DW-1 (i.e., defendant no.2) deposed that the property in suit was owned and possessed by Chhajju Ram, who was his paternal uncle. Chhajju had executed the registered Will out of free will, d