Point of Law : Essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 of Act are : (1) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign instrument or have received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature; (2) with a view to attest or to bear witness to this fact each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the instant regular second appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendant’.

3. The defendant is the only daughter of Shri Masadi (plaintiff No.1) born from his first wife (late Smt. Devku).

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 6-10 bighas out of the total land measuring 17-00 bighas comprised in Khewat No. 26, Khatauni No. 29, Khasra Nos. 9, 11, 18, 19,23, 25 and 64, situate in Village Nal, Pargana Fatehpur, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land). The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into their peaceful ownership and possession.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is an old man residing in a remote corner of the District with his old wife (plaintiff No.2). There was no one to look-after them and their estate. Smt. Devku first wife of plaintiff No.1 expired when defendant was a small child. It is averred that plaintiff No.1 looked after defendant and got her married by spending huge amount. Being a daughter, the defendant had a lot of influence upon the plaintiffs and she always assured to look after them. It is further averred that the defendant even cultivated the land owned by them on their behalf and used to handover the usufruct to them as she was their licensee. Being under the total influence of the defendant, she took plaintiff No.1 to Tehsil to get a Will prepared in her name by assuring them that plaintiffs will remain exclusive owners in possession of the suit property and after their death, the property will devolve upon her. It is also averred that the defendant even assured the plaintiffs that in case they are not satisfied with the services rendered by her, they will be at liberty to revoke the Will. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant obtained thumb-impressions of plaintiff No.1 on a document by representing that the same is a Will and she even told to the plaintiffs that she will retain the Will and they can take the Will back from her as and when required and being daughter, the plaintiffs trusted the defendant.

6. It is further averred that after a few years, the defendant told them that she is unable to cultivate the land on their behalf. Then, the plaintiffs requested one Shri Garja Ram, who was related to them to cultivate the land for them and on their behalf. This arrangement continued for 4-5 years and Shri Garja Ram used to help them. Thereafter, the defendant asked Shri Garja Ram not cultivate the suit land on the pretext that she is owner in possession of the suit land. On this, the plaintiffs were taken aback and even remained bed ridden for months together, but the defendant did not turn up to help them. As per the plaintiffs, Shri Garja Ram took their care and is constantly looking after them and when they recovered from ailment, they inquired from defendant about the manipulation of the so-called gift deed. Instead of helping the plaintiffs, the defendant proclaimed that they should approach Shri Garja Ram to serve them.

7. It is also averred that gift deed dated 10.08.2000 is a result of misrepresentation and undue influence exercised by the defendant. As per the plaintiffs, they have revoked the licence of the defendant and she has nothing to do with the disputed property which is owned and possessed by plaintiff No.1. The defendant has failed to look after and serve them as was promised.

8. It is further averred that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs on 14.01.2007 when the defendant entered into the suit land and tried to cut and sell the trees standing thereon by saying that the suit land belongs to her. The plaintiffs requested the defendant to admit their claim and desist fr