The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the validity of a Will in accordance with the law, and the entitlement of daughters as coparceners under the amended Hindu Succession Act of 2005.

JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.124-A/2014, whereby learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1, dismissed the counter claim filed by appellants/defendants No.1 to 3. Learned trial Court in its impugned judgment on the basis of Will executed on 28.10.2010 by testatrix Late Kachra Bai, who was mother of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3 has held that plaintiff /respondent No 1. Dashrath Sahu is the owner of lands bearing khasra Nos. 61/14,291/1, B/2, 291/1, M/2, 291/4 total khasra Nos. 4 area 0.457 hectare and khasra Nos. 291/1, T/3, area 0.101 hectares, 2.31 acrea.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 124 A/2014 which was filed for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction.

3. The plaint averments in brief are that defendants Smt. Sonia Bai, Smt. Munni Bai and Smt. Pushpa Bai all are residents of Bilaspur. The suit land already described by this Court in the above paragraph is the self-acquired property of Smt. Kachra Bai, mother of defendants No.1 to 3 and plaintiff. The name of Smt. Kachra Bai was recorded as title holder of the suit land. It has been further pleaded that plaintiff has taken care of his mother till his lifetime, all the last rituals have been performed by him and due to care taken by him Smt. Kachra Bai bequeathed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 28.10.2010 and since then plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendants are neither in possession nor title holder of the suit land. After death of Smt. Kachra Bai, plaintiff has moved an application for mutation of the suit land in his name being successor per Will dated 28.10.2010 executed by Smt. Kachra Bai. The name of plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue record as the land owner on 10.09.2013. The defendants No. 1 to 3 had preferred an appeal wherein they have raised an objection that the plaintiff is not only successor of Smt. Kachra Bai and they are also the successor of Smt. Kachra Bai, as such their names should also been recorded in the revenue record.

4. The defendants No. 1 to 3 are illegally interfering in the title and ownership of the suit land which is owned by the plaintiff, this has necessitated the plaintiff to file present suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction.

5. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint contending that the Will dated 28.10.2010 is forged one, as such, on the basis of forged document, order of mutation is illegal and against the provisions of law, therefore, order dated 10.09.2013 is not binding upon them. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have not been arrayed as parties in mutation proceedings, the Will is forged one and against the Hindu Succession Act as well as Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of forged Will the plaintiff cannot acquire any right over the property. It has been further averred that the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit before the Revenue authority stating that he is the sole son of his parents and except him no other child was born from the wedlock of his parents and on the basis of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, his name has been recorded in the revenue record which is illegal and would pray for rejection of the civil suit. The defendants have filed their counter claim, claiming that the plaintiff has no right to succeed in the property as per Mitakshara Branch of Hindu Law, the daughters are also entitled to get share in the property. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have submitted that the suit land is an ancestral property as such they are also coparcener in the suit land, therefore, order passed by the Revenue authority ignoring the provisions of law is illegal and deserves to be set as