The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.5.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1997, passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP, (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 plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the Will dated 22.4.1991 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. A consequential relief of a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the suit land, described in para no. 1 of the plaint, was also sought. It was asserted that Puran Chand was the owner-in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff is Puran Chand’s sister, who became the owner in possession of the suit land after his death. Mutation No.144, dated 7.5.1991, was attested in her favour. Defendant No.1 produced a forged and fictitious Will stated to have been executed on 22.4.1991, whereas Puran Chand had died on 21.4.1991. The suit land is ancestral, and Puran Chand was not competent to execute a Will regarding it. Hence, the suit was filed for seeking the relief mentioned above.

The suit was opposed by defendant No.1 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of locus standi and the plaintiff being estopped by her act and conduct to file the present suit. The contents of the plaint were admitted regarding the ownership of Puran Chand and the description of the land. It was asserted that the plaintiff never resided in Village Sherpur or Chama Naun. The mutations were set aside by the Divisional Commissioner. Puran Chand executed a registered Will in favour of the defendant on 22.4.1991. He died on 23.4.1991 in CHC, Ratti. A wrong entry was recorded in the Panchayat record regarding Puran Chand’s death on 21.4.1991. The defendant performed the death ceremonies and also went to Haridwar. The Mutations No. 135 and 144 were attested clandestinely. The suit was filed without any basis; hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

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

Learned trial Court framed the following issues on 31.10.1996: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the property owned and possessed by deceased Puran Chand, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether, in the alternative, the plaintiff is entitled for possession? OPP.

3. Whether deceased Puran Chand has executed a valid Will dated 22.4.1991 in favour of the defendant? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by her act and conduct? OPD.

7. Relief.

Parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff examined Balwant Singh (PW1), Parma Nand (PW2), and Narain Singh (PW3). The defendants examined Inder Singh (DW1), defendant No.1 (DW2), Pratap Singh (DW3), Roshan Lal (DW4), Ghanshyam (DW5), Puran Chand (DW6) and Darshan Singh (DW7).

The learned Trial Court held that the execution and attestation of the Will propounded by the defendant was shrouded in suspicious circumstances. The beneficiary had actively participated in the execution of the Will. The testator was moved from CHC, Ratti, to Mandi and was brought back. He breathed his last on 21.4.1991. The date of death was manipulated to 23.4.1991. It was difficult to believe that a person undergoing treatment at CHC, Ratti, would visit Mandi for the execution of the Will and thereafter would die within less than 24 hours of the execution. The Will propounded by the defendant was not a genuine document. Hence learned Trial Court answered Issues No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issues No.3 to 5 in negative and decreed the suit