V.K. Sharma, Judge

The present appeal at the instance of the contesting defendants is against the judgment and decree, dated 14.12.2007, of the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 7/2007, titled Hotam Ram and another versus Budhi Parkash and others, whereby the judgment, dated 14.11.2005, of the learned trial Court, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, Camp at Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 36 of 2002/156/04-M, titled Hotam Ram and another versus Budhi Parkash and others, was reversed and thereby the aforesaid Civil Suit for grant of a decree of declaration with consequential relief of injunction filed by the contesting respondents herein as plaintiffs against the appellants and the proforma respondents herein as contesting defendants and proforma defendants, respectively, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court, has been decreed by allowing the appeal.

2. The dispute between the parties concerns the estate of late Shri Jagat Ram @ Jagatu, grand father of the plaintiffs comprised of Khata No. 239, Khatauni No. 424, Khasra No. 840, measuring 2-16-0 bighas, vide Jamabandi for the year 1992-93, situate at Phati Shirar, Kothi Raison, Tehsil & District Kullu (H.P.), which shall hereinafter be referred to as the suit land. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall also be referred to hereinafter by their status as it was before the learned trial Court, i.e. plaintiffs, contesting defendants and proforma defendants, respectively.

3. Whereas, the plaintiffs have based their claim to the suit land as owners in possession in equal share on the basis of Will Ext. PW-2/A, dated 4.3.1992, said to have been executed in their favour by their grand father late Shri Jagat Ram @ Jagatu, who shall hereinafter be called as the 'deceased', the defendants have set up another Will Ext. DA, dated 12.5.1997, said to have been executed by the deceased in their favour.

4. Whereas, proforma defendants No. 3 & 4, Jog Ram and Shakuntla Devi @ Tara Devi are son and daughter, respectively of the deceased, the plaintiffs are sons of proforma defendant No. 3, Shri Jog Ram.

5. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs were minor and were represented by their mother-cum-next friend, Smt. Dolma.

6. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that the deceased was owner in possession of the suit land. He died on 24.11.1998. He was 'Harijan' (Cobbler) by caste. The proforma defendants were born out of the loins of the deceased. The suit land was allotted in favour of the deceased by the Government as 'Nautor'. After allotment, he made it cultivable and planted an orchard therein. The deceased and proforma defendants lived together under one roof. He was looked-after and served by proforma defendant No. 3 and as such, in lieu of the services rendered by proforma defendant No. 3 and the plaintiffs, the deceased executed his "last, final and valid" registered Will, dated 4.3.1992, in favour of the plaintiffs in equal share and as such, they have become owners in' possession of the suit land after the death of the deceased on 24.11.1998. According to the plaintiffs, the last rites and rituals of the deceased were performed by proforma defendant No. 3 and the plaintiffs as per custom. The original Will propounded by the plaintiffs was annexed with the plaint. It was further averred that defendants No. 1 & 2 are Rajput by caste. However, they have been keeping an eye on the suit land and were trying to grab the same by hook or crook. With this motive, they propounded a forged and fictitious Will in respect of the suit land said to have been executed by deceased in their favour on 12.5.1997. Whereas, the deceased never executed any Will in favour of the contesting defendants as there was no relationship between the deceased and the contesting defendants and their father. The alleged Will was never signed by the deceased during his life time. The contesting defendants never served the deceased during his life time nor did they perform an