This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu dated 12-9-85 in File No. 9/Appeal, whereby judgment and decree passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, Samba in File No. 41/Civil, dated 6-12-83, has been upheld.

2. Facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be noted in brief.

Plaintiffs as well as respondents-1 to 3 are the sons of Bhullu Ram and defendants 4 to 11 are his grandsons. Will Exhibit-PA dated 9-10-70 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Samba on 25-3-71. is the subject-matter of the suit that was filed by the plaintiffs. As per plaintiffs case, the land in suit was ancestral property held by the deceased and the Will in question according to them, was inoperative and void thus being nullity did not affect their rights and relief of partition as well as of prohibitory injunction and of possession was also claimed in the suit.

3. Further case of the plaintiffs was that deceased Bhullu Ram became owner of the property in question when its ownership was granted to him in accordance with the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. 2007 (1950 A.D.). Since this was not self-acquired property of the deceased, as such he had no right to alienate and or Will away the same, since parties to the case had legal right, share in the ancestral house was also claimed by the plaintiffs. Deceased-Bhullu Ram being not in a position to execute the Will, as he was an old ailing person, meaning thereby that he was not in a fit stage of mind to have executed the Will in question, and lastly it was pleaded that the Will was executed by Bhullu Ram under undue pressure of defendants 1 to 3, who were trying to get the land mutated in their favour in connivance with the revenue staff and thus were trying to forcibly occupy the suit land by disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs.

4. These pleas of the plaintiffs were contested and resisted by the defendants. It was specifically pleaded that the suit property was self-acquired property of deceased Bhullu and thus he was competent to bequeath the same in any manner he liked. Will Exhibit PA was pleaded to have been executed by the executant of his free Will. Further plea of suit being not properly valued and being improperly stamped was also raised in addition to the fact that plaintiffs having already separated as far back in the year 1950 and thus, they had severed all connections with the de-ceased-Bhullu. In these circumstances, it was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in its present form. Defendants-4 to 11 did not contest the claim of other defendants and tenor of their written statement indicates that they have by and large supported the case of defendants-1 to 3. However, in their written statements, they have feigned ignorance of the Will in question.

5. On the aforesaid pleadings, parties went to trial on the following issues: -

1. Whether the suit property comprised of Kh. Nos. 206, 207, 208, 93, 95, 146/min 77, 79, 182 and house of Bhullu Ram as per annexure C&D situate in village Bhudwal is the ancestral property of the Joint Hindu Family of the plaintiffs? OPP.

2. Whether the Will dated 9th Oct., 1970 was executed by Bhulu Ram and registered on 25th March, 1971 under the influence of undue pressure by the defendants-1 to 3? OPP.

3. Whether on 28th of September. 1977 the defendants attempted to take forcible possession of the suit land and the house, if so what is its effect on the suit? OPP

4. Whether the value for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is incorrectly fixed, and paid, if so what is the correct value? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs have separated from Joint Hindu Family in the year 1940, if so, what is its effect? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

7. Relief.

6. On conclusion of the trial, issues-1 to 3 and 5 were decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Issues-4 and 6 were not pressed and thus suit was dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document