JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.35-A/2004 by the III Additional District Judge, Raipur whereby the decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a Civil Suit was filed by Smt. Surendra Kaur Gendu, daughter of late Bishen Singh Jabbal, claiming 1/7th share in respect of house situated Raipur over land bearing Khasra No.31/880 to 880/3 & 877 which was shown as the suit land and the residential house. The claim was for partition, separate possession and share in the residential house to the extent of 1/7th and further claim was to have the rent to the extent of 1/7th equivalent to her share. The parties to the suit are interse related to each other. According to the plaint allegations, Bishen Singh Jabbal, the father of the plaintiff died on 14.12.1990 and after his death, Kailash Kaur, the mother defendant no.1 (since deceased) and other defendants 2 to 6 are the legal heirs. The map of the suit premises and residential house is appended to the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that mother Kailash Kaur (D-1) and brothers Shri Rajpal Singh (D-2) Amarjit Singh (D-3), Jaspal Singh (D-4) reside in the residential premises. It was further stated that defendants 1 to 4 were earning rental income of Rs.15,000/- from the said premises and when the plaintiff demanded her share to the extent of 1/7th, it was refused by the brothers and mother. The plaintiff stated that the suit land got recorded in the name of mother Kailash Kaur in the Municipal Corporation Assessment Register wherein the plaintiff Surendra Kaur and another sister Dr. Vinita Naik @ Paramjit who was arrayed as defendant No.6 applied for mutation of their names but it was rejected. The plaintiff asserted that defendant-brothers do not intend to give the part of share, therefore, initially, a notice through advocate was served on 17.04.1999 and responding to it, her brothers Amarjeet Singh (D-3), Jaspal Singh (D-4) replied to the notice on 23.04.1999 and claimed that the property exclusively belonged to them on the basis of a forged will and refused to part with share in respect of the suit property. Consequently, the suit was filed.

3. The defendant mother and brother Rajpal Singh (D-2) and one sister Kamaljeet Kaur who was arrayed as defendant no.5 had jointly filed their written statements and the brothers Amarjit Singh (D-3) and Jaspal Singh (D-4) had separately filed their written statements and stated that late Bishen Singh Jabbal constructed the house No.31/880/2 over the suit premises from his self-earned money and House No.877 devolved on Bishen Singh as a heir by virtue of a Will executed by his father Inder Singh. Subsequently, it was pleaded that on the basis of Will executed by Bishen Singh Jabbal in favour of Amarjeet Singh (D-3) and Jaspal Singh (D-4) they became exclusive owners of the subject suit property. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiffs filed their application to get their names mutated in the Municipal Records, which was rightly rejected. Defendant No.6, the other sister namely Dr. Vinita Naik supported the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of the pleading, learned Additional District Judge framed 7 issues. Issue no.1 is whether the plaintiff has 1/7th share in the suit property ? If yes, whether she is entitled to get the possession by separating 1/7th share from the suit property ?. Issue no.2 is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/7th part of rent which would be received from the suit property ? Both these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. With respect to additional issue No.1, the trial Court held that the suit property was the exclusive property of late Bishen Singh Jabbal. In respect of additional issue no.2 which pertains to execution of Will dated 01.11.1988, the Court held that the Will is