The mere presence of beneficiaries during will execution is not sufficient to invalidate it; the burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies with the challengers.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chachiot at Gohar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (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 plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that the Wills dated 20.03.2007 and 11.04.2007 stated to have been executed by Dharam Chand were null and void, which had no binding effect upon the plaintiffs’ rights. A decree for possession was also sought in case the defendants succeeded in forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land described in para 1 of the plaint was also sought.

3. It was asserted that the suit land was owned and possessed by Dharam Chand, who was the plaintiffs’ cousin. Purshottam, plaintiffs’ father, and Moti Ram, father of the deceased Dharam Chand, were real brothers. The plaintiffs used to look after Dharam Chand and supply him with all the necessities of life. The defendants propounded two Wills dated 20.03.2007 and 11.04.2007, stated to have been executed by Dharam Chand in their favour. The plaintiffs, being a relative of Dharam Chand, were entitled to inherit the suit land. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, and the defendants threatened to interfere with his possession based on the Will. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement admitting that Dharam Chand was the owner of the suit land. The remaining contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was asserted that Dharam Chand had executed two wills on 20.03.2007 and 11.04.2007 in the defendants’ favour voluntarily in his free, sound and disposing state of mind in consideration of the services provided by the defendants to him. The Will dated 20.03.2007 had a mistake in it, and Dharam Chand executed a Will on 11.04.2007. The defendants remained in possession of the suit land. Dharam Chand had also filed an application before Tehsildar Thunag for taking action against the plaintiffs and their family members regarding the unlawful interference with his land. The suit was filed without any basis. Hence, it was prayed that it be dismissed.

5. No replication was filed.

6. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 11.11.2008: -

1. Whether Dharam Chand was a relative of the plaintiffs, being the son of their uncle Moti Ram, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether Dharam Chand was looked after during his life time by the plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the suit property was ancestral in nature? OPP.

4. Whether the Wills dated 20.03.2007 and 11.04.2007 are a result of fraud, coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation and are liable to be declared null and void, as alleged? OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP.

6. Whether the plaintiff in the alternative is entitled to the relief of possession, as prayed for? OPP

7. Whether the Wills dated 20.03.2007 and 11.04.2007 were voluntarily executed got registered by Dharam Chand of his free will and consent and out of love and aff