IMPORTANT POINT
Stay of suit – Mere filing of application under Section 10 CPC does not in any manner put an embargo on power of court to examine merits of matter.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J.—The order of mine shall dispose of the above titled application, which has been moved by the applicants, who have been impleaded, as respondents, in the present appeal. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. By way of the present application, a prayer has been made to stay the proceedings in Regular Second.

Appeal No.513 of 2016.

3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present application, under Section 151 CPC, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:—

3.1. Appellant Maya Devi has filed a suit for declaration claiming that she is owner-in-possession of the suit land, as, fully detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’), on the basis of the inheritance and the plaintiff is not bound by mutation No.152 dated 24.11.2011, which was attested on the basis of fraud and fictitious Will No.158 dated 25.3.1987.

3.2. Appellant has also sought the consequential relief of injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from causing any sort of unlawful interference in the ownership and peaceful possession of the plaintiff to the extent of her share and also from ousting and dispossessing the plaintiff from encumbering or alienating the suit land, in any manner.

3.3. The suit has been filed on the ground that father of the plaintiff Shri Ram Dass was co-owner in possession to the extent of his share. Father of the plaintiff expired on 9.3.2011, leaving behind three sons, who have been impleaded in the lis, as defendants No.1 to 3, four daughters, namely; Maya Devi, plaintiff, Tikkmi Devi, proforma defendant No.4, Smt. Kubju, mother of proforma defendants No.5 to 8 and Smt. Tulsi died unmarried on 7.9.2011.

3.4. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Shri Ram Dass, his estate was inherited by plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 3 and proforma defendant No.4, one share each and proforma defendants No.5 to 8, one share equally.

3.5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Ram Dass was looked after by his sons and daughters and he never executed any Will in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 at any point of time.

4. On the basis of the above facts, she has sought the relief, as, claimed in the suit.

5. When put to notice, the suit has been contested and resisted by defendants No.1 and 2, by taking the preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2 was not maintainable; she has got no right, title or interest over the suit land, as, defendants No.1 and 2, have inherited the suit property, on the basis of a valid and last registered Will dated 25.3.1987.

6. Apart from this, defendants No.1 and 2 have taken the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no cause of action; the plaintiff has suppressed and concealed the true and material facts from the scrutiny of the Court; the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the suit; and the suit of the plaintiff is based upon false and frivolous allegations.

7. On merits, the suit has been contested on the ground that after the death of Ram Dass, his property was inherited by the plaintiff and proforma defendant No.4, as well as, proforma defendants No.5 to 8. They have set up the ownership and possession of the suit land, by way of inheritance, on the basis of the Will, executed by their father Ram Dass.

8. Not only this, defendants No.1 and 2 have also denied the stand taken by the plaintiff in the suit by pleading that the father of the defendants had bequeathed his immovable property i.e. suit land including the house, in favour of defendants No.1 to 3. Thereafter, on the basis of the said Will, mutation was attested and sanctioned in their favour on 24.11.2011. At that time, plaintiff and Tikmi were also present and they consented for the said mutation. Plaintiff and Tikmi also signed the said proceedings before the Revenue Officer.

They have also denied the possession of the plaintiff, as alleged. Hence, a prayer has been mad