IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RS A No.150 of 2023

Date of Decision : 04.12.2025

Mathru (deceased) through LRs. and others

…… Appellants

Versus

Lalit Kumar and others

……Respondents

Coram: t

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting u ?1

For the Appellants : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Umesh Kanwar and Ms. Isha Thakur,

Advocates.

Bipin Ch ander Negi, Judge (oral )

The Appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.65 of 2016 (Filing No.478/2016), titled Mathru (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Lalit Kumar and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.94-I/2010,

were affirmed.

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

2. The parties to the appeal, hereinafter for the sake of convenience, shall be referred to in the same manner as desPcribed in the judgment of the ld. Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction, claiming ownership and cultivatory possession of the land comprised in Khewat No. 418, Khatauni No. 481, measuring 16-02-10 bighas, Khasra Nos. 577, 578, 57t9, 581, 583, 600, 609, 628, 689, Kita-9 situated in muhal Bhour/4, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Their case was that the suit land, initially owned by the predecessor-in-interest of Sh. Khindu, had been inherited by his legal heirs, including the plaintiffs. They averred that Smt. Mangli Devi, a descendant of Khindu, out of love and affection bequeathed her share in the parental property to the plaintiffs through a Will dated 20.06.1999, executed voluntarily. The plaintiff No.1, an illiterate old lady, was entrusted with the custody of the Will. After Mangli iDevi's death, the plaintiff No.1 presented the Will to the Patwari, who kept a copy and assured that mutation would be attested on its basis.

4. The plaintiffs remained under the impression that the bequeathed share had been mutated in their favour. However, on 04.10.2010, when defendant No.11 tried to interfere with their possession, they discovered from the revenue record that mutation No. 2277 dated 27.08.2010 had been illegally attested in favour of defendants No.1 to 10 (the legal heirs of Mangli Devi), and further that defendants No.3, 6 & 7 had alienated parts of the suit land in favour of defendant No.11 vide Sale Deed Nos. 826/2010 and 834/2010, with corresponding mutations Nos. 2281 and

2282 dated 22.09.2010. The plaintiffs contended that these mutations and sale deeds were illegal, null and void, and that the defePndants were threatening to disturb their peaceful possession. The cause of action accrued on 05.10.2010 when the plaintiffs acquired knowledge of these illegal orders. 5. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiffs' ownership and possession. They claimed to be joint owners in possession, asserting that mutation No. 2277 was legally attested after due enquiry. They denied the execution and validityt of the alleged Will dated 20.06.1999, contending it was a result of fraud, undue influence and coercion, and that Mangli Devi was not in a position to execute a valid Will due to old age and illness. Defendant No.11 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value.

6. Per pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Trial court on 29-05-2014: -

“1. Whether Mangli Devi deceased daughter of Hukmia had bequeathed her share in the suit land out of love, by free will and volition through a Will dated 20-6-1999 in favour of the plaintiffs? OPP.

H 2. If, issue No.1 is proved, whether the mutation