JUDGMENT

Rekha Mittal, J. - Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the courts whereby suit for declaration that the appellant-plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 21 kanal 7 marlas i.e. half share of total land measuring 42 kanal 14 marlas, detailed in para 1 of the plaint situated within the revenue estate of village Malikpur, Sub Tehsil Siwan District Kaithal and the defendants-respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit land, the alleged Will dated 11.6.1998 executed by Smt. Sukhma Devi and mutation No. 1969 in favour of the defendants is illegal, null and void, has been partly allowed.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that the entire land measuring 42 kanal 14 marlas was owned by Jug Lal son of Sh. Matu son of Harnam alias Harna resident of village Malikpur who died on 21.5.1983. Jug Lal was married with Sukhma Devi but no child was born from their wedlock. Jug Lal and Sukhma Devi kept the appellant as their heir, treated him as their son and performed his marriage. The appellant is the son of Ram Chander, brother-in-law of Jug Lal. It is further averred that Jug Lal executed Will dated 15.4.1982 whereby he bequeathed half share of his entire estate in favour of the plaintiff and life interest of remaining half share in favour of Sukhma Devi. It was stipulated in the Will that after death of Sukhma Devi, her half share will devolve upon the appellant-plaintiff. Sukhma Devi died in January 2005.

3. Defendants-respondents started claiming share of Sukhma Devi on the basis of Will dated 11.6.1998 and got mutation No. 1969 sanctioned in their favour on 18.2.2005. Sukhma Devi was not competent to execute the Will as she had only life interest in the suit land.

4. The respondents-defendants filed the written statement and, in turn, raised preliminary objections inter alia locus standi to file the suit and maintainability of the suit. They have admitted that Jug Lal was owner in possession of land measuring 42 kanal 14 marlas; marriage of Jug Lal with Sukhma and no child being born out of their wedlock. The appellant was adopted as son by Jug Lal with the consent of his wife when he was 23 years old and he was transferred from the family of his father Ram Chander alias Golu to the family of Jug Lal and was left with no connection with family of Ram Chander. They also admitted that Jug Lal executed Will in favour of the appellant and Sukhma Devi but denied any stipulation in the Will that the appellant would acquire right in the property after death of Sukhma Devi. Sukhma Devi executed a Will in favour of the respondents-defendants.

5. The appellant filed replication, reiterated his stand taken in the plaint and denied averments of the written statement contrary to the averments taken up in the plaint.

6. The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues:-

1. Whether Jug Lal executed valid Will dated 15.4.1982 in favour of the plaintiff, whereby / share was given to him and qua remaining half life interest were devolved upon Sukhma Devi and the plaintiff is now owner in possession of the suit property for which declaration is liable to be issued as prayed for?OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff then whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

3. Whether the Will dated 11.6.1998 executed by Sukhma in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 is illegal, so also the mutation No. 1969 got sanctioned on the basis of that Will?OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for concealment of true and material facts ?OPD

7. Relief.

7. To prove his case, appellant examined Gopi Chand Deed Writer PW1, Jarnail Singh PW2 and Sadhu Ram PW4 and himself appeared in the witness box. The respondents examined Ramesh Chand, Deed writer DW1 and Bansi Lal, N