The court established that the validity of a Will requires proof of the testator's intentions and mental capacity, dismissing allegations of undue influence as unfounded.

1. The appellant / Defendant has preferred this First Appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.8.2011 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.36A / 2011, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent for declaration of title and vacant possession of room of the suit house, where the defendant is residing, situated at land bearing Khasa No.1110/5 area 552 sq.ft. Lakhe Nagar, Pt. Laxmi Narayan Das Ward No.61, Raipur, has been decreed, in favour of the plaintiff.
(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that deceased Gulechi Bai, during her life time, constructed a house on plot bearing Khasra No.1110/5 area 552 sq.ft. situated at Lakhe Nagar, Pt. Laxmi Narayan Das Ward No.61, Raipur (henceforth refers as 'suit house'. Since Gulechi Bai was issueless, she kept the plaintiff with her since his childhood and he served her during her old age, hence, Gulechi Bai executed a registered Will on 05.3.2001 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit house. Gulechi Bai died on 23.01.2006 and thereafter the plaintiff got entered his name in the revenue records of Municipal Corporation, Raipur on the basis of the said Will. During the life time of Gulechi Bai, one of the room of the suit house was given under licence to the defendant to reside there and the defendant was residing there with her husband. After the death of Gulechi Bai, the licence of the defendant automatically expired and the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the suit house, however, she refused to vacate and declared herself as owner of the suit house. Thereafter the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of title and vacant possession of the room of the suit house, where the defendant is residing.

3. The defendant / appellant herein filed written statement along with counter claim stating therein that suit house is not self - acquired property of deceased Gulechi Bai, but it is ancestral property, therefore, she has no right to bequeath a Will. It is further pleaded that the Will is a forged one and the same has been registered secretly. Since Gulechi Bai was illiterate and was ill due to her old age, taking undue advantage of this, the plaintiff got executed and registered a forged Will in her name. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was residing in the suit house only on the capacity of licensee / tenant, on which he has no right, whereas, the defendant is the owner of the suit property by virtue of being niece of Gulechi Bai and her sole successor, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed and vacant possession of suit house from the plaintiff and outstanding rent Rs.800/- per month from January 2006 be granted to her from the plaintiff by allowing counter claim.

4. Based on the above facts, learned trial Court framed issues and after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.8.2011 allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant, holding therein that the plaintiff is having title over the suit house on the basis of valid Will executed by late Gulechi Bai in his name and the defendant has no right to retain her possession in the disputed room of the suit house. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant has preferred instant appeal.

5. L