JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The appellant is the plaintiff, who having lost before both the learned Courts below, has filed the instant appeal by invoking the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before this Court.

The parties shall be referred to as the ''plaintiff'' and ''defendants''.

2. Brief facts giving rise to file the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he alongwtih proforma defendant No.3 is owner in possession in equal share of the land comprised in Khata No.1, Khatauni No.1, Khasra Nos. 373, 439, 440, 491, 492, 496, 520, 521/1, 524, 540, 548, 549, 612, 608, 627, 645/1, 653, 678, 700, 702, 842, 849, kita 22, area measuring 45 Kanals 13 Marlas, situated in Tikka Bailag, Tappa Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) as the heir of deceased Munshi Ram and the alleged Will dated 9.3.2010 and the mutation No.600 dated 24.7.2010 on the basis of said Will was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.3 as the property was ancestral qua the deceased Munshi Ram, plaintiff and proforma defendant No.3, therefore, deceased Munshi Ram had no legal right to alienate the suit property in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 without any legal necessity and the said alienation was illegal, null and void and the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.3 were legally entitled to inherit the property after the death of deceased Munshi Ram and were further entitled to permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from alienating the suit land in any manner whatsoever or changing its nature.

3. The defendants resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement wherein they took preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppel, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, cause of action, suppression of material facts and even claimed special costs. On merits, it was admitted that the father of the plaintiff was recorded owner in possession of the suit land and mutation No.600 qua the suit land had been sanctioned in their favour. It was also admitted that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.3 were the sons of late Munshi Ram. However, it was averred that Munshi Ram had alienated the suit land in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Devi through settlement deed and part of the suit land had been alienated and mutation No. 576 had been sanctioned in her favour and remaining land had been bestowed upon defendants No. 1 and 2 through registered Will executed by Munshi Ram on the basis of which mutation No. 600 had been attested. It was further averred that Munshi Ram had been murdered by the plaintiff and his family members and they had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Earlier to that, the behaviour of the plaintiff and his family members was not cordial with Munshi Ram, constraining him to execute the Will in question. The plaintiff after his marriage had been living in the house of his in-laws and had not served Munshi Ram during his life time, who in fact had been looked after and maintained by defendants No.1 and 2 as well as Smt. Shakuntla Devi.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on two occasions framed the following issues, which read thus:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPP

3(a) Whether Will executed by late Sh. Munshi Ram in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 is valid Will ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct, as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Co