( 2025:HHC:44225)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

RSA No.01/2025P

Date of Decision: 17.12.2025

Bhagi Devi (deceased)

through LRs

.....Appellants.

Versus

Ram Dass …..Respondent.

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the Appellants : Mr. Navneen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

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

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The Appellant, before this Court by filing this appeal under

section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), praying for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu District Kullu H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2024, whereby the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kullu District Kullu H.P. in Civil Suit No. 152 of 2013 titled as Bhagi Devi through LRs vs. Ram has been

affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were

referred before learned Trial Court.

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

3. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the original plaintiff, Smt. Bhagi Devi, filed a suit for declaration on

04.07.2013, pleading that her husband, late Sh. Kishan Chand, was the owner in possession of the suit land as detailed in the jamabandi for the year 2009-10 of Muhal Raugi, Phati & Kothi, Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu H.P. and that he died on 14.01.2013. It was pleaded that no issue was born from their wedlock and the plaintiff was the sole legal heir of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff suffered from epilepsy and the defendant, taking undue advantage of her illness, started threatening and attempting to oust her from her share in the suit land. Upon enquiry, she learnt that the defendant had fabricated a Will dated 08.10.2012, based on which Mutation No. 42 was entered, though not y et attested. The plaintiff thus sought a declaration of being the joint owner in possession of the suit land inherited from her husband, a declaration that the said Will was null and void, and permanent injunctions restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and from getting the mutation attested.

4. The defendant, Ram Dass, who is the real brother of late Kishan Chand, filed a written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, and valuation. On merits, he admitted the relationship and the plaintiff's medical condition but denied the rest of the plaint. He submitted that late Kishan Chand, in a sound and disposing state of mind, had executed a registered Will dated 08.10.2012 in favour of both the defendant and the plaintiff, in lieu of services rendered by the defendant. He claimed possession of the entire suit land since the time of the Will and stated that the plaintiff had left to live with her sister and was not in possession. He prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 22.10.2013:

1. Whether the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of suit land as the plaintiff inherited thet same from her husband late Shri Kisrhan Chand being the sole legal heir, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether mutation no.42 attested in favour oof defendant is null and void, as alleged?

OPP.

C3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP.

4. Whether Will dated 8.10.2012 is legal and genuine executed by late Sh. Kishan Chand g in favour of parties, as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

6. Relief.

6. The original plaintiff died during the pendency of the Civil Suit, therefore, her legal heirs were brought on record. After the parties led evidence, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal. In th