The main legal point established is that a registered WILL must be proved beyond suspicion, and the court must consider the arm chair theory and surrounding circumstances to assess its validity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 28th November 2016 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.1A/2013 whereby the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

2 (a) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit interalia stating that the suit house bearing No. C-346 (New Number 203) situated at Mouja Juna Bilaspur, Krishna Nagar Ward No. 27, Bilaspur area 55 x 27 = 3500 sq.ft. which is surrounded by four corners namely by house of Santsoh Sharma in the north, Road in the South, house of Late Adhari Lal Soni in the East, as Gend Ram Sao Marg in the west. The suit house was owned by the testator-Late Atmaram Gupta who died on 03.12.2004. The suit house was constructed by Late Atmaram Gupta who resided over there till his life time. It is pleaded that late Atmaram Gupta had executed a registered WILL dated 28.11.2003 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit house and agricultural land situated at village Mouja Lagra PH. No. 18 R.I. Circle Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. It was further pleaded that after the death of Atma Ram Gupta, the plaintiff became owner of the suit house and came into possession of the same. The defendant No.1 Girish Chand Gupta was residing separately during the life time of Atmaram Gupta and was residing at Narmada Nagar, Bilaspur and never resided in the suit house. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that when the dispute arose between the parties on the issue of execution of WILL, the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing No. 34-A/2010 in the Court of 8th Civil Judge, Bilaspur however, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and presently appeal is pending before the Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.

2(b). It was further pleaded that even after having knowledge of the WILL, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 had moved an application for mutation of their names in the municipal records before the Municipal Corporation i.e. defendant No.3. On the basis of such application of the defendant No.1, the defendant No.3, the Corporation had passed the mutation order on 15.12.2010 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is stated before passing such mutation order, no notice was ever served upon the plaintiff therefore, the mutation order dated 15.12.2010 is vide ab-iniitio and not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further stated after getting the mutation order in his favour, the defendant No.1 tried to take possession of the said house in the month of July 2011 and was trying to alienate the suit house. It is stated when the appellant/plaintiff came to know about the said mutation order the action of the defendants was challenged by publishing a general notice in the daily newspaper on 29.07.2011. It is also pleaded that despite service of notice upon the defendant No.3 under Section 401 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956, no action was taken by them to set aside the mutation order dated 15.12.2010. Thus, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the title and permanent injunction against the defendants on the basis of WILL dated 28.11.2003.

3 (a). After service of summons upon the defendants, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint averment and submitted that the suit house is situated over a part of abadi bhoomi at Juna Bilaspur, bearing Khasra No.12, admeasuring 24.924 hectare. It was stated the suit house exists from the time of their grand father/great grand father. It was denied that the testator-late Atmaram Gupta alone was the exclusive title holder of the suit house to bequeath it by WILL and the defendants No.1 & 2 are title holder in possession of the suit house since their birth. The execution of WILL dated 28.11.2003 by Atmaram Gupta was also denied and it was submitted the family settlement deed dated 12.05.1997 was suppressed and plaintiff himself has prepared t