IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 198 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025.

Amit and another .....Appellants.

Versus f Ajudhiya Devi and others …..Respondents Coram u The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellants : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior h Advocate with Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Respondents No. 2 to 7 ex parte. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) .

The present appellants have filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 22-D/XIII/2024/2022, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge-II,

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

Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 13/2014 has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, herein.after in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referredf before learned Trial Court. The facts of the present suit are that the plaintiff, claiming to be thet owner in possession of 1/4th share in the suit land, filed a suit for declaration. She alleged that she was the legally wedded wife of deceased Bansi Lal, with whom she lived for about 57 years, and that she rendered all types of services to him throughout his life. The plaintiff contended that Bansi Lal had executed a valid registered Will dated 09.06.2000 in favour of her and his three sons. She further alleged that the defendants No. 1 to 3, in connivance with others, got a fictitious Will dated 15.09.2008 prepared and registered, taking advantage of Bansi Lal's infirm and ill health and his unsound disposing mind at that time. The plaintiff asserted that the suit land was ancestral property and that Bansi Lal had no right to divest her or the proforma defendants of their shares. She also challenged the mutation entered on the basis of the alleged Will dated

15.09.2008.

3. The defendants No. 1, 3, and proforma defendants No. 7 and 8 contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, collusion between the plaintiff, defendant No. 2, and proforma defendants No. 4 to 6, estoppel, suppression of material facts, mauintainability, and locus standi. On merits, they aodmitted that the plaintiff was in possession Cof the old house but denied her ownership claim. They admitted the execution of the Will dated 09.06.2000 but justified the subsequent Will dated 15.09.2008, stating it was executed due to changed Hcircumstances, including the death of one son and the construction of shops, and was done with the consent of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants. They asserted that Bansi Lal was of sound mind when he executed the 2008 Will and that the plaintiff and other legal heirs had accepted this Will by signing the mutation based on it. Defendant No. 2 and proforma defendants No. 4 to 6, however, admitted the plaintiff's claim.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 03.01.2017:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the Will dated 09/06/2000 executed by deceased Bansi Lal son of Jamit Singh son of Kharku registered before Sub Registrar, Shahpur in full disposing sense without coercion or duress with his free will and is valid? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD

1, 3, 7, 8.

4. Whether the present suit has been filed by plaintiff in collusion with her son Ravinder defendant No.2 and her daughters proforma defendants No.4, 5 and 6, and as such liable to be dismissed, as alleged? OPD

1,3, 7, 8.

5. Whoether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, as a