Whether approved for reporting?¹1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 16.09.1993, passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking possession of the suit land mentioned in the headnote of the plaint. It was asserted that the suit land was recorded in the name of Mangtu, son of Chhotu, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. He died on 13.10.1988. The pedigree table of the parties is as follows:

Pedigree Table

Defendant No.1 propounded a Will stated to have been executed by Mangtu. Mangtu was not in his sound disposing state of mind for three years before his death. He was aged 79-80 years at the time of his death. The plaintiff and proforma defendants are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

The suit was opposed by filing a written statement by defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of locus-standi, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, and the plaintiffs being estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that Mangat Ram was the owner in possession of the suit land and he had expired. It was asserted that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 had shifted to Uttar Pradesh about 40-50 years ago. They purchased property and never visited the village. The defendants looked after Mangat Ram and provided him with all the amenities of life. Mangat Ram executed a Will on 4.10.1985 in favour of defendant No.1, his grandson, in his sound disposing state of mind. The plaintiffs are not entitled to the estate of the deceased. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

A separate written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs was filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 5.

A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

The following issues were framed on 08.04.1991

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, and the plaintiffs have no cause of action as alleged? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether Sh. Mangat Ram deceased executed a valid Will on 04.10.1985 in favour of defendant No.1, if so its effect? OPD

6. If issue No.5 is proved in affirmative, whether the said will is the result of fraud, undue influence, etc., as alleged? OPP.

7. Relief.

The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and plaintiff No. 1 examined herself (PW-1), Geeta Devi (PW-2), Joginder Pal (PW-3), Dhari Ram (PW-4) and Ishwar Dass (PW-5). Defendants examined defendant No.1 Ramesh Chand, Meena Kumari (DW-2), Goverdhan Lal (DW-3), Meena Kumari (DW-4), Satish Kumar (D-5), Sohru Ram (DW-6), Harnam Singh (DW-7), Meena Kumari (DW-8), L.R. Verma (DW-9) and Nikka Ram (DW-10).

The learned Trial Court held that the onus to prove the Will was upon the defendants, who ha