The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and detailed pleadings in cases of fraud, undue influence, or coercion, and the burden of proof on the propounder to establish the genuineness of the Will. The judgment also emphasizes the need to remove all suspicious circumstances and provide cogent and convincing explanations to establish the genuineness of the Will.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The defendants are the appellants, who aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 passed by learned first Appellate Court whereby it reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2000 passed by learned trial Court, have filed the instant appeal. The parties shall be referred to as the 'plaintiffs' and the 'defendants'.

2. The facts in brief are that the land comprised in Khewat No. 83, Khatauni No. 123, Kitta 53 measuring 251 Kanals 12 Marlas, situated in Tika Lidkot, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as the suit land) was the ancestral property. Pohlo Ram, father of the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 was in possession of this land as owner through his ancestors. The parties have a right of ownership and possession in this land since their birth because the same is Hindu coparcenary property. The plaintiffs and defendants have got ½ share each in this land. Pohlo Ram died on 14.3.1989 and the mutation No. 953 dated 7.11.1989 qua the suit land was sanctioned in favour of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in equal share. Later on, on 4.8.1990 the said mutation was wrongly and illegally reviewed and sanctioned in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 on the basis of some fraudulent, sham and fictitious Will alleged to have been executed by Pohlo Ram in their favour. Pohlo Ram had been living with the plaintiffs and was served by them and there was no occasion for him to execute any such Will. Accordingly, the mutation sanctioned in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 on the basis of alleged Will is nullity, inoperative, not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit land. Even otherwise also the alienation through a Will is illegal as the suit land is Hindu coparcenary property. The plaintiffs along with defendants have been coming in possession of the suit land, but defendants No.2 to 5 on the basis of the aforesaid sham and fictitious Will threatened to oust the plaintiffs from the joint ownership and possession of the suit land. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land being Hindu coparcenary property is jointly owned and possessed by the parties and the plaintiffs are having ½ share in it and the Will claimed by the defendants alleged to have been executed by Pohlo Ram in their favour and the mutation sanctioned in their favour on 4.8.1990 on the basis of said Will, are nullity and not binding upon the plaintiffs, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to oust the plaintiffs from the joint possession of the suit land.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties were taken. On merits, they denied that the suit land is Hindu coparcenary property. It was averred that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land and further alleged that in fact the suit land was self acquired property of Pohlo Ram, who was living with defendant No.1 and his family members. Defendant No.1, his wife and sons used to serve Pohlo Ram in all manners and in lieu of their services, Pohlo Ram executed a Will dated 28.3.1973 qua the suit land in their favour. In fact, Pohlo Ram was having immoveable property in two villages i.e. Mauja Thara Teeka Changar and Teeka Lidkot and vide registered Will dated 28.3.1973 he bequeathed the entire suit land which is situated in village Lidkot in favour of defendants No. 2 to 5, whereas the land situated in Teeka Changar was bequeathed in favour of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in equal share. After the death of Pohlo Ram, the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of aforesaid Will and the plaintiffs have no concern with the same.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

?1. Whether the Will of March, 1973 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 5 is fraudulent