Ownership must be proved beyond suspicious circumstances for a will to be valid, and permissive possession cannot be assumed without clear evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the present civil first appeal, preferred by and on behalf of appellant-defendant No.1 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), challenge has been made to judgment and decree dated 14.11.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.4/1985 (7/1979) titled Mst. Pooni Bai Vs. Shiv Charan and others, passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karauli, whereby and whereunder the civil suit for possession filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff Smt. Pooni Bai has been decreed and she has been held entitled to get possession of the portion of house, marked with “A” in the map, available on record as Exhibits 3, 4 & 5, from defendants. Since the defendant No.1 is in actual and physical possession over the portion of house marked as “A”, in respect of which the decree for possession has been passed, therefore, only defendant No.1 has challenged the judgment and decree by way of present first appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties at length and scanned the record.

3. It is factually not in dispute that parties to the present lis belong to one family and are successors/legal representatives of late Smt. Laddu Bai. One Sh. Angad Singh and Smt. Pooni Bai, being natural heirs of Smt. Laddu Bai, were real brother and sister. Appellant-defendant No.1 Shiv Charan is natural son of late Sh. Angad Singh and respondents No.2 to 4 are other successors of late Sh. Angad Singh. After death of Smt. Laddu Bai, her daughter Smt. Pooni Bai instituted the present civil suit for possession against two sons and widow of late Sh. Angad Singh i.e. against her deceased brother’s legal representatives. The civil suit has been decreed in her favour vide impugned judgment, which is under challenge in the present first appeal at the behest of appellants. During course of suit, the widow of Sh. Angad Singh passed away, hence his two daughters were also substituted and brought on record.

4. The property in question, in the present first appeal, which is marked as “A” in the map (Exhibits 3, 4 & 5) is a part of a three storied residential house, situated at Mohalla Gonsai Pada, District Karauli.

5. Facts of the present case as culled out from the record and which are necessary to be taken into consideration to decide the present first appeal are that:

5.1 Smt. Pooni Bai, the original sole plaintiff, instituted the present civil suit on 05.03.1979 stating inter alia that the entire three storied house situated at Mohalla Gonsai Pada, Karauli along with the Jagir land at Village Manthai were given to her mother Smt. Laddu Bai, by the then Raja of Riyasat Karauli namely Sh. Bhompal Ji in samwat 1985 (according to the english calendar it is year 1928) against the services rendered by her mother to nurture of son of Raja Bhompal, namely Sh. Ganeshpal as Dhai Ma.

5.2 It was stated that since then, plaintiff’s mother Smt. Laddu Bai started to live in this house and because the plaintiff became widow, hence she also came back to Karauli and started to reside with her mother in the house in question.

5.3 It was stated that plaintiff's mother executed a Will dated 21.01.1955 of the house in question in favour of plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff’s mother passed away on 06.06.1956, so by virtue of the Will dated 21.01.1955, the absolute ownership of the house in question was claimed to be inherited by the plaintiff alone.

5.4 It was sta