JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amloh vide which the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff (Shila Devi Alias Sheela Devi) instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of residential house to the extent of half share (fully described in the plaint) situated in Guru Ki Nagri, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') on the basis of a registered Will dated 01.06.2006 duly executed by Ram Kaur in favour of the plaintiff and son of defendant namely Shivam. A further declaration was sought declaring the mutation dated 21.04.2007 regarding the estate of Ram Kaur sanctioned in favour of the defendant on the basis of Will dated 20.03.1996 as being illegal, null and void. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from ejecting or dispossessing the plaintiff from her peaceful possession over the suit property was sought.

4. The case set up was that Ram Kaur had executed a registered Will dated 01.06.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and son of defendant namely Shivam. After the same, the plaintiff and defendant started living in half portion each of the suit property. The defendant threatened the plaintiff many times that he would eject the plaintiff from the suit property and alleged that Ram Kaur had executed a Will dated 20.03.1996 in his favour. It was averred that the said Will, if any, was a forged and fabricated document. It was averred that relations of defendant were never cordial with Ram Kaur and the defendant used to beat her up as he was addicted to various vices. The plaintiff, being 'Jethani' (husband's brother's wife) had been serving Ram Kaur and in view of the services rendered by her, Ram Kaur executed her last registered Will dated 01.06.2006. Since the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, the suit was filed.

5. The suit was opposed by the defendant. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi, the plaintiff not having approached the Court with clean hands etc. were raised. It was averred that no Will dated 01.06.2006 had been executed by Ram Kaur and that the said Will was a forged and fabricated document which had been created four days before the death of Ram Kaur. It was averred that in her last days, Ram Kaur usually remained sick and was not in her sound disposing state of mind and was suffering from various diseases. It was averred that the plaintiff was a stranger and not 'Jethani' of Ram Kaur, since the father of the defendant had no brother and, therefore, there was no question of her executing a Will in favour of a stranger. It was the defendant who had been serving his mother in old age and as a result of the same, Will dated 20.03.1996 was executed.

6. It was averred that the said Will dated 20.03.1996 had been scribed by a regular deed writer after which the marginal witnesses had signed. The Will was, thereafter, got registered. It was averred that the said Will is the last Will of Ram Kaur and on the basis of the same, mutation had duly been entered. It was averred that, in fact, the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant and had not paid rent.

7. In the replication, averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Wheth