JUDGMENT :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. Appellant-Defendant No. 1-Smt. Kamla Devi filed this first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1989 passed in Civil Suit No. 36/1984 by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby and whereunder civil suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction filed by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff in relation to the movable and immovable properties of late Smt. Sahodara Devi has been decreed in his favour and against the appellant-defendant No. 1 in following manner:

^^nkok cgd oknh f[kykQ Áfroknhx.k e; [kpkZ fMØh fd;k tkrk gSA ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknh e`rd lgksnjk nsoh dk mRrjkf/kdkjh gksus ls nkos ds iSjk uEcj 3 esa ntZ vpy lEifr esa ls lc&baLisDVj bapktZ] dksrokyh dk] ftl fgLls ij okLrfod dCtk gS dk okLrfod dCtk o Áfroknh uEcj 2 dh fdjk;s'kqnk lEifRr dk lkadsfrd dCtk o lwph ,DthŒ 6 esa ntZ py lEifRr dk dCtk Áfroknh uEcj 1 o lc&baLisDVj bapktZ] dksrokyh ls ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA oknh U;k; 'kqYd vnk djus ij Áfroknh uEcj 2 ls fdjk;s'kqnk lEifr dk 85@& :i;s ekgokj fd nj fnukad 24-07-1980 ls fdjk;k ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA**

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties at length and perused the impugned judgment as also scanned the material on record.

3. The principal point emerges for consideration in the present case is that who would succeed the suit properties left by Smt. Sahodara Devi? From the record, it is indisputed that Smt. Sahodar Devi died issue-less on 04.03.1977 and her husband, father and mother pre-deceased her. Appellant-Defendant No. 1-Smt. Kamla Devi who happens to be daughter of her sister, has succeeded in legal proceedings initiated by her under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on the basis of “Will” of Smt. Sahodara Devi dated 09.10.1976. Learned District Judge, Jaipur City, in such summary proceedings under Section 192, after recording evidence of parties and after according opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1-Plaintiff, passed order dated 03.05.1980 and has accepted the “Will” of Smt. Sahodar Devi as genuine and valid, and further inquiry has been concluded in favour of appellant and directions have been issued to deliver the possession of her properties to applicant Smt. Kamla Devi (appellant herein) until order is impeached by the competent court of law in regular suit in accordance with law. But thereafter respondent No. 1-Plaintiff instituted the present civil suit on 23.07.1980, challenging the “Will” of Smt. Sahodar Devi as forged and fabricated as also alleging the order dated 03.05.1980 and prayed to quash the “Will” and the order dated 03.05.1980. Respondent No. 1 is claiming his right, title and interest in the suit property of Smt. Sahodara Devi and has prayed for possession of suit property, claiming himself to be natural successor of late Smt. Sahodara Devi. Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff happened to be son of sister of husband of late Smt. Sahodara Devi. The respondent -defendant No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Devi happens to be tenant of Smt. Sahodara Devi in a portion of suit property and agreeable to pay rent to the person, declared to be owner and successor of the suit property of Smt. Sahodara Devi as per direction of the Hon’ble Court. Thus, appellant is alleging herself to be successor on the basis of testamentary document of “Will” of Smt. Sahodara Devi. Per contra, respondent No. 1 is claiming his right, title and interest in the suit property of Smt. Sahodara Devi by non-testamentary succession and has challenged the “Will” of Sahodara Devi executed in favour of appellant and has prayed for possession of the suit property.

4. At the outset and before considering facts and evidence of both parties in detail and to discuss issues involved in the present matter, it may be clarified that the dispute between parties is in relation to the suit property of Smt. Sahodara Devi, movable and immovable, as described in para No. 3 of the plaint situat