JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. vide which the appeal filed by the respondent(plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was allowed and the cross objections filed by the appellant (defendant before the learned Trial Court) were dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that she is the owner in possession of the suit land as mentioned in para-1 of the plaint, and mutation No. 10222 regarding the suit land in favour of defendant is wrong, illegal, null and void. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Bir Chand and the marriage between them was solemnized as per the customs 50 years back before the filing of the suit. The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Beer Chand. She discharged her matrimonial obligations faithfully. No issue was born to the plaintiff and Beer Chand. Beer Chand died intestate on 7.2.2014. The plaintiff performed his last rites. Beer Chand had purchased the property at Fati Shamshi and at Kullu. Plaintiff and Beer Chand had constructed a house at Shamshi. The estate of Beer Chand was inherited by the plaintiff as his sole legal heir. The defendant in connivance with the revenue authorities got the mutation of the estate of Beer Chand sanctioned in his favour based on some Will dated 5.12.1994. This Will was fictitiously set up by the defendant in connivance with the scribe and the marginal witnesses. The Will is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. The Will and Mutation attested on the same are not binding on the rights of the plaintiff; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, taking preliminary objections regarding the plaintiff having not come to the Court with clean hands, the suit not being properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, the plaintiff being out of possession and lack of jurisdiction. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. However, the relationship between the plaintiff and Beer Chand was not disputed. It was asserted that the plaintiff never performed her matrimonial obligations towards Beer Chand. The defendant took care of Beer Chand and performed his last rites. Beer Chand executed a Will dated 5.12.1994 in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff and Beer Chand were issueless and they treated the defendant as his son. The defendant served the plaintiff and Beer Chand. He (Beer Chand) earlier executed a Will in favour of the defendant on 16.9.1991. The plaintiff objected to the Will and Beer Chand executed another Will dated 5.12.1994 which was registered on 6.12.1994. Beer Chand bequeathed a house bearing No. DHL 58 in Ward No. 12, Nagarpalika Kullu to the plaintiff. Beer Chand disposed of the house at the instance of the plaintiff and paid sale proceeds to the plaintiff. The Will and Mutation are valid. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 23.11.2016 or and 1.3.2021:

1. Whether after the death of Beer Chand, the plaintiff has inherited the suit land being her wife and is absolute owner in possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

3. Whether deceased Beer Chand had executed valid Will dated 05.12.1994 in favour of defendant? OPD

3(a) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD

3(b) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Relief.

6. The partie