The courts affirmed that without a valid challenge to a sale deed or demonstrated ownership, the claims on the basis of a Will are invalid.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sa tyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for rreporting?1No.

For the appellanut: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellant/defendant No.1 seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2018, passed by learned Additional H District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Civil Appeal No.

40-K/14/2013, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 122/2007 has been affirmed.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Heard learned Counsel for parties and record also perused.

3. The dispute relates to the rights over the land comprised in Khata No. 48, Khatauni NoH. 85, Khasra No. 312, measuring 0-03-44 hectares situated at Mahal Kanjehr, Mauza Ghurkari, Tehsil and District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”).

4. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein along with other co-ownersu of the suit land, filed a suit seeking decree of permanoent prohibitory injunction to restrain the appeCllant/defendant from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant over the suit land.

5. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the isame status as they held before learned trial Court.

6. The case as set up by the plaintiffs was that the suit land was owned by them alongwith one Sant Ram, who later had transferred his share in the suit land to the proforma defendant by way of registered sale deed. Thus, the plaintiffs, claiming themselves and proforma defendant as the co-owner in possession of the suit land, had alleged that the defendants were strangers to the suit land and were trying to interfere therein without any right, title or interest. 7. Defendant Veena Rani filed Hwritten statement to the effect that she was adopted daughter of Sant Ram and after Sant Ram was in possession of the suit land to the extent of share of Sant Ram. The defendant also claimed title over the suit land on the basis of a Will allegedly executed in her favour by Saunt Ram. It was alleged that there was a house on part of tohe suit land in which the defendant was residing sinceC the life time of Sant Ram. The sale deed executed by Sant Ram in favour of proforma defendant was also alleged to be null and void.

8. The defendant also filed counter claim seeking ideclaration to the effect that sale deed dated 14.10.2005 executed by Sant Ram in favour of proforma defendant and mutation dated 28.11.2005 attested on its basis was wrong, illegal, null and void.

9. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:

“i) Whether defendant No.1 is stranger to the suit land, as alleged? OPP “ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmativPe, whether the defendants are causing unlawful interference into their proprietary rights and joint p.ossession as co-

shares in and over the suit land as alleged? OPP.

iii) In the case the defendants succeed in dispossessing the plaintiffs and proforma defendants form any part of the suit land, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession? OPP.

iv) Whether sale deed dated 14.10.2005 purportedly executed by Basant Ram @ Sant Ram in favour of defendant No.3 is the result of fraud and collusion, as alleged? OPP1.

vo) If issue No.4 is proved in affirmative, whether defendant No.1 is entitled to a decree of declaration by way of Counter Claim as alleged? OPD1.

vi) Whether abovenamed Basant Ram @ Sant Ram had executed a registered will dated, 7.11.2003 in favour of defendant No.1, if so, its effect? OPD1.

g vii) Whether the suit preferred by the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD1.

viii) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct form filling the present suit? OPD1.

ix) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD1.

x