The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the valid execution of a Will and adoption deed in property disputes, and the significance of additional evidence in revealing inconsistencies that weaken the case of the party presenting the documents.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants impugning the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Sudama Parshad s/o Hari Shankar was the owner of the suit property. He was married to one Smt. Jamuna Devi and out of the wedlock he had 5 daughters, 4 being the plaintiff-respondents and one being Kanchan, who is not a party to present lis. After the death of Smt. Jamuna Devi on 16.02.1999, said Sudama Parshad performed a second marriage with Smt. Nirmala Devi. No child was born out of the wedlock. The appellant No.1-defendant No.1, Dalip Sah, is brother of Smt. Nirmala Devi whereas the appellant No.2-defendant No.2, Smt. Sumriti Devi, is his wife and the appellant No.3-defendant No.3, Master Chandan, is their natural son. Sudama Parshad died on 09.11.2012 and his second wife, Smt. Nirmala Devi, died on 08.10.2014. It is the case set up by the plaintiff-respondents that the defendant-appellants along with Smt. Nirmala Devi had an evil eye on the suit property and in order to grab the same, when Sudama Parshad was not in his senses, pressurized Sudama Parshad and forced him to put his signatures and thumb impression on a pre- prepared/typed document of Will and adoption deed. The said Will bearing document no.550 dated 30.10.2012 and adoption deed bearing document no.249 dated 30.10.2012 and subsequent entries on the basis of the Will in the revenue record have been challenged in the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondents.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant-appellants, it was stated that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Sudama Parshad in which the plaintiff-respondents had no right as Sudama Parshad during his lifetime left a registered Will dated 30.10.2012 bequeathing all his properties firstly in favour of his wife namely, Smt. Nirmala Devi, and after her death in the name of his adopted son namely, Master Chandan. It was denied that the Will and the adoption deed dated 30.10.2012 were forged and fabricated documents.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as alleged ? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as alleged ? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands before the Court to file the present suit and concealed the true and material facts ? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis- joinder of necessary party ? OPD

8. Relief.

5. Vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents holding that the execution of the Will and adoption deed had not been proved by the defendant-appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellants. However, vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2019 the said appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend that both the documents i.e. adoption deed and the Will were registered documents and that Sudama Parshad during his lifetime had adopted defendant No.3-appellant No.3, Master Chandan, and thereafter, on the same day, Sudama Parshad had executed a Will bequeathing all his properties firstly to his wife namely, Smt. Nirmala Devi, and thereafter to his adopted son, Master Chandan. According to counsel, the Will stood dul