The crucial legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove his relationship with the deceased and the validity of the Will in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

As per report of the Registry, steps have not been taken for the service of respondents No.9(c) & 16 and further, legal representatives of deceased-respondent No.10 have also not been brought on record. Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant submits that taking into consideration the fact that respondents No.9(c) and 16 are proforma respondents and further, deceased respondent No.10 is also proforma respondent, on his prayer, their names be deleted from the array of the respondents. Ordered accordingly.

Names of respondents No.9 (c), 10 and 16 are deleted from the array of respondents. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties.

Heard for the purpose of admission.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the contesting defendants to the effect that Will dated 26.03.1999 was illegal, null and void and was procured by the predecessor of defendants No.3 to 7 and that the suit land was co-parcenery property, which otherwise could not have been alienated by way of Will. Decree was also sought for restraining the defendants by way of permanent prohibitory injunction also.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was owned and possessed by late Shri Mithan son of Shri Dayalu, who was the common ancestor of the parties. After the death of Mithan, Shri Jhambria inherited the suit land being the son of Mithan. He was the ‘karta’ of family and custodian of the suit land. Mithan had two sons, namely Jhambria and Shibu. Plaintiff was the grandson of Jhambria, who expired on 20.09.2005. After the death of Jhambria, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.3 to 7, namely, one Shri Raju got mutated the inheritance of the suit land in favour of the defendants. As per the plaintiff, he was informed that the inheritance stood attested in favour of all successors, but in the month of June, 2009, when plaintiff visited the Patwarkhana to obtain certain revenue records, it is then that he came to know that the suit land had been mutated on the basis of a Will of Jhambria, which Will was a result of fraud. According to the plaintiff, Jhambria had never executed any Will nor he could have had bequeathed the ancestral property to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Further, as per the plaintiff, the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances as Jhambria was old, aged and ailing person. The same was further outcome of misrepresentation of facts and collusion between defendants No.1 and 2 and late Shri. Raju, predecessor-in-interest of the other defendants. It is in this background, the suit stood filed.

3. Defendants No.4 to 7 filed a composite written statement through their natural guardian, opposing the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Jhambria was not related to plaintiff. As per the defendants, Fate Ram, father of the plaintiff was the son of one Janglu. Smt. Balki was the wife of Janglu, who gave birth to Fate Ram. She later on got settled with Jhambria when Fate Ram was about two years old. Jhambria was having two wifes. One was Smt. Balki and the another was Smt. Bangalan. Smt. Bangalan got settled with the brother of Jhambria, namely Shibu and gave birth to Hira Lal, i.e. the father of proforma defendant No.8. Sohan Lal, proforma defendant No.8 inherited the property of Shibu. Jhambria executed Will dated 26.03.1999 in favour of the defendants. As per the contesting defendants, the suit land was not ancestral and coparcenery property, but the same was self acquired property of late Shri Jhambria, whose brother was already separated in mess and possession of land. Further, as per the contesting defendants, the father of the plaintiff used to live at Karsog for the last twenty five years and plaintiff himself was residing at Kullu. There was no blood relation between pla