Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (Learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for a declaration that the ‘Will’ dated 15.01.1994 stated to have been executed by late Bhadar Singh is null and void, and the ‘Will’ dated 6.07.1997, stated to have been executed by Bhadar Singh, is his last testament. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants from interfering with the land comprised in Khewat No. 109, Khatauni No. 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, bearing Khasra number (Kittas 13), measuring 7-15-11 bighas, situated in Muhal ‘Bhadyall’ 211, Illaqa Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was asserted that Bhadar Singh had 1/4th share in the suit land. The nature of the suit land is coparcenary property. Bhadar Singh died on 20.02. 1999, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant, as his legal heirs, based on the ‘Will’ dated 06.07.1997. The defendant propounded a forged Will stated to have been executed by Bhadar Singh on 15.01.1994, which is shrouded in suspicious circumstances. The defendant got a mutation attested in his favour based on the ‘Will’. The plaintiff requested the defendant to acknowledge his title, but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement and an additional written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the suit being barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the suit not being maintainable. It was admitted that Bhadar Singh was the owner in possession of the suit land. It was asserted that the Khasra numbers of the suit property were not specified, which is a violation of the mandatory provisions of law. Bhadar Singh also owned the property in Mauza Paunta, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., which he had gifted to the plaintiff during his lifetime. Plaintiff and his family members shifted to the village Paunta. They did not care for Bhadar Singh. The defendant, his mother and other family members took care of Bhadar Singh; therefore, he bequeathed the property in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has forged the ‘Will’. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The defendant also filed an additional written statement on 27.12.2023, taking preliminary objections regarding the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the suit being barred by limitation, and the plaint not supported by an affidavit. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that Bhadar Singh was the owner of the suit land. It was asserted that Bhadar Singh also owned the property in Mauza Paunta, which had given by him to the plaintiff. Plaintiff and his family members shifted to village Paunta, and the property in village Bhadyal was given to the defendant to maintain harmony between the parties. The plaintiff did not take care of Bhadar Singh during his lifetime. Ganga Ram, father of the defendant, used to maintain the property of Bhadar Singh and take care of Bhadar Singh and his wife. Manchali Devi, mother of the defendant and other family members, took care of Bhadar Singh after the death of Ganga Ram. Bhadar Singh executed a ‘Will’ in favour of the defendant after being satisfied with the services rendered by the relatives of the defendant. The plaintiff’s daughter-in-law was practising with Uttam Singh Thakur Advocate. Yadv