The validity of a Will executed by Hukam Chand was upheld, dismissing claims of fraud due to lack of credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff- appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2018 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Hukam Chand had three sons (Tejbir, Suresh and Sat Narain) and three daughters (Sukhdevi, Santosh and Ishwanti). One son, Tejbir (defendant-respondent No.1), was married to plaintiff-appellant No.2 and plaintiff-appellant No.1 is their son. According to the plaintiff-appellants the suit property is ancestral property in the hands of the defendant-respondents as the same was inherited by Hukam Chand from his father and as such the plaintiff-appellant No.1 being the only son of the defendant-respondent No.1 has become coparcener and is having pre-existing right in the suit property. It was averred that the defendant-respondents are bent upon to sell the ancestral property and have been making negotiations for the said purpose, without any kind of legal necessity. As per the plaintiff-appellants the alleged Will dated 11.08.2011 executed by Hukam Chand in favour of his grand children Ashwani Kumar, Ravi Dutt sons of Sat Narain, Arpan alias Happy son of Suresh Kumar is illegal, bogus, invalid, ineffective, result of fraud and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-appellants and is liable to be set aside. It was alleged that the defendant-respondents, on the basis of the Will dated 11.08.2011, are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff-appellants from the suit property and alienate the same. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by the legal heirs of Sat Narain son of Hukam Chand [defendant Nos.2(ii)(a), (b), (c), (d)] and Ishwanti daughter of Hukam Chand [defendant No.2(v)] while the other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement the defendant Nos.2(ii)(a), (b), (c), (d) raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action, locus standi etc. were raised. On merits it was the stand that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Hukam Chand who had died by committing suicide and left the Will dated 11.08.2011. It was submitted that the said Will was a registered Will and duly executed by Hukam Chand after appearing before the Sub Registrar, Karnal along with independent witnesses. Similar written statement was filed by defendant No.2(v). No replication was filed by the plaintiff-appellants.

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

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for declaration, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standit to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the answering defendants? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD

6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable in its present form? OPD

7. Relief.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2015 dismissed the suit while inter-alia upholding the Will dated 11.08.2011 executed by Hukam Chand. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.4.2018. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellants. Along with the present appeal an application (CM-17035-C-2018) for leading additional evidence has been filed to place on record a Will dated 20.03.2006 purportedly executed by Hukam Chand.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has contended that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the suit of the pl