The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the execution of a Will as per the provisions of the Evidence Act, particularly Section 69, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to possession of the shop and recovery of damages for use and occupation based on the valid Will.

This is second appeal by defendant-Devinder Kumar against concurrent judgments of Courts below decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent (Amit Ohri) for possession of suit property situated in the area of Hariana, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, as fully described in headnote of the plaint and for recovery of Rs.22,000/- on account of use and occupation charges for the period w.e.f. 27.08.2002 to 27.07.2003.

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. Case of plaintiff, in brief, is that the shop in dispute was purchased by Chaman Lal Ohri @ Mehanga Ram through registered sale deed dated 24.08.1982. He was running business of selling sweets in this shop till his death except for a period from 27.08.2002 onwards when the appellant-defendant, taking benefit of illness of Chaman Lal Ohri, illegally, forcibly and unauthorizedly broke opened the lock of the shop and occupied the same. He also gave injuries and shock to Chaman Lal Ohri, who could not bear the humiliation and ultimately died on 13.09.2002. Appellant-defendant was requested by plaintiff to vacate and surrender possession of the shop in question to plaintiff alongwith articles lying therein as Chaman Lal Ohri due to love and affection and services rendered by plaintiff had bequeathed this shop to him and his 2½ killas of land to his grandson Pushpinder Ohri through registered Will which was acted upon after his death. The shop in question require immediate reconstruction as it has outlived its life and is in dilapidated condition. Plaintiff also claimed damages for the use and occupation of the shop in question by the defendant from 27.08.2002 to July, 2003 @ Rs.2000/- per month amounting to Rs.22,000/-. A legal notice dated 15.04.2003 was also served on the defendant through counsel but in vain, hence this suit.

3. The defendant-appellant contested claim of plaintiff inter alia pleading that Chaman Lal Ohri died at the age of 80 years at PGIMER, Chandigarh on 13.02.2002. In the shop in dispute he was running halwai shop with defendant and was joint in mess and residence with him and his sons Pawan Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Davinder Kumar, who served him till his death. Last rites of Chaman Lal Ohri were also performed by Pawan Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Davinder Kumar. Plaintiff is son of Buta Ram, who had been living in village Khanpur. Buta Ram never visited Chaman Lal Ohri during his last days due to strained relations. Tarsem Lal one of the sons of Chaman Lal Ohri predeceased him. Sunita Rani, Rohit Ohri and Neena Ohri are the legal heirs of Tarsem Lal (deceased). Chaman Lal left behind his sons Pawan Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and Davinder Kumar, legal heirs of predeceased son Tarsem Lal and Boota Ram father of plaintiff besides daughter Asha Rani, who all have succeeded the property of Chaman Lal Ohri in equal shares. Plaintiff has no right or concern whatsoever with the shop in dispute and his claim of title over disputed shop based on alleged Will executed by Chaman Lal Ohri, was denied. It was alleged that defendant alongwith other legal heirs of Chaman Lal Ohri has filed civil suit claiming inheritance to property of Chaman Lal by natural mode of inheritance.

4. Pleadings of parties led to framing of the issues and additional issue as follows:-

(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of shop as shown red in site plan attached with plaint? OPP

(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.22,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the shop, alongwith the interest, if so at what rate? OPP

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

(4) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD

(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

(6) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

(7) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

(7A) Whether deceased Chaman Lal had executed legal and valid Will dated 29.08.2002 in favour of plaintiff and Pus