The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to support claims of property ownership and inheritance rights, as well as the interpretation of mutation records and relevant legal provisions.

RAJIV SHARMA, J. -

1. THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 24.9.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge I, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 76 G/2009.

2. 'KEY facts' necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience) filed a suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" for the sake of convenience) to the effect that she was owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No.23, Khatauni No.33, Khasra No.2075, measuring 0-02-03 hectares and Khata No. 24, Khatauni No.34, Khasras No. 2071, 2074, and 2076 measuring 0-18-48 hectares to the extent of 11/18 shares and 9/10 shares respectively as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and also of the property owned and possessed by Bansi Lal, son of Dhannu after his death on 13.1.1983. According to the plaintiff Bansi Lal died issueless and was unmarried. He was sole successor of his father. He had no sister namely Ishwari Devi and mutation No.198 qua estate of Bansi Lal sanctioned on 21.7.1986 in favour of Ishwari Devi and subsequent mutation No.454 sanctioned and attested on 31.10.1996 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 were wrong. The plaintiff also sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she is daughter of Purni Devi. After death of Purni Devi, mutation No. 499 was sanctioned and attested in her favour on 30.9.1997 on the basis of registered Will. According to the plaintiff, she and her mother being illiterate had no knowledge about wrong entries in the revenue record. According to her, defendant No.3, who was a shrewd person, in collusion with revenue agencies, got mutation of estate of Bansi Lal sanctioned and attested fraudulently in favour of his mother.

The suit was contested by the defendants. According to them, they were not aware of any Will allegedly executed by Purni Devi in favour of the plaintiff. They admitted that Bansi Lal was unmarried. He was not sole successor of Dhannu, but Ishwari Devi being daughter of Dhannu was also his successor. Dhannu had two children, one Bansi Lal and another Ishwari Devi, mother of defendants No. 1 and 2. According to them, since daughters were not earlier entitled to get share in the land, due to which mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in the name of Bansi Lal only. Ishwari Devi being sister of Bansi Lal was sole successor of Bansi Lal. Mutation of inheritance was rightly sanctioned and attested in favour of Ishwari Devi and she was absolute owner in possession qua the share of Bansi Lal in the suit land. Mutation was sanctioned in the year 1986 and this fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and after death of Ishwari Devi, defendants succeeded to her estate being natural successors. The plaintiff had no concern with the estate of Bansi Lal. Mutation No. 198 was rightly sanctioned and attested in favour of Ishwari Devi and subsequent mutation No. 454 attested in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 was also legal, lawful and binding on the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 Roshan Lal died during pendency of the suit before learned trial court and his legal representatives, namely, Veena Devi, Amit Sharma and Rajan were brought on record.

3. THE replication was filed by the plaintiff. Learned trial court framed the issues on 7.9.2005 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.6.2009.

4. FEELING aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before learned first appellate court, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 24.9.2012. Hence, the regular second appeal.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has duly proved that Ishwari Devi was not sister of Bans