IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.228 of 2009 Between:

1. BALWANT, S/O SH. NARPAT RAM, 2. PINTU &

3. TEJ SINGH: BOTH SONS OF SHRI TEK CHAND, 4. REENA DEVI WD/O LATE SHRI TEK CHAND, 5. DIN ESH KUMAR, 6. LAL CHAND, BOTH SONS OF SHRI TEK CHAND, 7. SMT. PAWNA D/O LATE SHRI NARPAT, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GUMMA, TEHSIL JOGINERNAGAR, DISTT.

MANDI, H.P.

….APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS.

(BY MR. G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. HIMA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI HEM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE GUMMAL, TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR, DISTT.

MANDI, H.P.

2 .

…. RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT. (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes This appeal coming on for hearing stage this day, the Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

By way uof this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, Camp at Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 68/07/2001, titled as Shhri Balwant & others Versus Smt. Hima Devi, decided on 07.01.2008, vide which a suit for declaration filed by the present appellants stood dismissed by the said Court, as also the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2008, titled as Balwant & others Versus Smt. Hima Devi, decided on 09.01.2009, vide which the appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was also dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellants (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Plaintiffs’) herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the Will

3 .

dated 27.01.1995, executed by Shri Narpat Ram, son of Shri Khindu was a void document having no effect on the Hrights of the plaintiffs. As per them, Shri Narpat Ram, i.e. their father died on 14.08.1997. At the time of his death, he had considferable Jamindari as well as other movable and immovable assets in Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. On 19.07.2001, plaintiff No.1 visited the Patwari Halqua, Gumma for the purpose of preparing a Kisan Book when he was told by the Patwari concerned that his father (deceased Narpat Ram) had executed a Will in favour of the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, before the said date they were not aware about the execu tion of any Will by their father in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, they applied for the copy of the Will and filed the suit for declaration. According to the plaintiffs, the alleged Will as set up by the defendant was never executed by Narpat Ram nor he ever visited the Tehsil campus for the purpose of either execution or registration of the same. The alleged Will was a forged documents, having no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and at the time when the Will was stated to have been executed, Narpat Ram was seriously ill and was admitted in Civil Hospital at Mandi. Primarily, on these basis, the suit was filed for declaration that Will dated 27.01.1995 be declared null and void having no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. It was further the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant was a

4 .

stranger as she was nowhere related to the plaintiffs or their deceased father and thus there was no reaHson that Narpat Ram would have had executed any Will in favour of the defendant.

3. By way of written statemenft, the defendant contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that she was daughter-in-law of the deceased and a mention thereof was made in the Will itself. The Will being a forged document was denied by the defendant and it was contended that the Will under reference was a genuine document having been executed by the testator in the presence of the witnesses including his wife. It was the further stand of the defend ant that the reason as to why the Will was executed were duly reflected in the said