SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(HP) 33

K.C.SOOD
SANTOSH KUMARI – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY KUMARI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Romesh Verma, for Appellants; R. K. Gautam, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, dated 25-6-1998. Necessary facts :

2. The suit property was owned by one Paddu Ram. Paddu Ram had two sons, namely Kewal Krishan and Om Parkash. Kewal Krishan pre-deceased Paddu Ram. Paddu Ram expired on 21-10-1991. Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Kewal Krishan. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are the owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of half share. Plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction against the defendant Om Parkash now substituted by his legal representatives (appellants herein) from alienating or charging the nature of the land more than his share in the property. Case of the plaintiffs was that after the death of Kewal Krishan, plaintiffs looked after Paddu Ram, rendered all service to him, during his lifetime. Paddu Ram out of love and affection, executed a Will dated 19-9-1991 in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants of his entire property in equal shares.

3. Defendant Om Parkash contested the claim of the plaintiffs. Execution of the Will by Paddu Ram, as claimed by the plaintiff, was disputed. Defendant set up



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top