A legal heir is entitled to inherit estate despite claims of disownment, where documents purporting to change succession are unproven.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Defendant No.1 of the suit is before this Court against the reversal. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the property in dispute filed by Plaintiff – Swarana Rani (respondent No.1 herein) was though dismissed by the trial Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ferozepur vide judgment dated 09.02.2016, but the appeal filed by said plaintiff - Swarana Rani was accepted by the First Appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, who set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 11.04.2017.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.1 Dispute pertains to the estate of one Kharaiti Lal.

3.2 Said Kharaiti Lal was married to Smt. Shanti Devi, who had predeceased him. They did not have any issue. Parents of Kharaiti Lal had already expired. Thus, Kharaiti Lal expired issue-less and without leaving any Class-I legal heir. It is not in dispute that plaintiff - Swarana Rani is the real sister of Kharaiti Lal and is the only surviving legal heir falling in Class II of Kharaiti Lal, as per Hindu Succession Act , 1956.

3.3 It is also not in dispute that defendants No.1 & 2 are not related to Kharaiti Lal in any manner. Defendant No.1-Balwinder is clerk to an Advocate in District Court, Ferozepur and defendant No.2 is also alleged to be aware about the technicalities of law.

4.1 According to plaintiff, she being the only natural heir of Kharaiti Lal, inherited the suit properties. It was alleged that taking undue advantage of the old age and mental & feeble condition of Kharaiti Lal, defendant No.1 got executed a power of attorney and obtained his signature on some blank papers; and then in connivance with the marginal witnesses, got executed forged and fabricated Will dated 26.06.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 and another Will dated 26.08.2010 in favour of defendant No.2. Not only this, in order to deprive the plaintiff of her legal rights in the suit property, defendants, got published a report in the newspaper at the behest of Kharaiti Lal so as to disown the plaintiff. It is further alleged that by misusing the forged and fabricated power of attorney, defendant No.1 sold one of the suit properties i.e. House No.108 to defendant No.3 by virtue of sale deed dated 01.06.2010.

4.2 It is further claimed by the plaintiff that during his lifetime, Kharaiti Lal had come to know about the fraudulent designs of defendant No.1 and therefore, he had made a complaint to DSP Sub Division, Ferozepur stating therein that he owned House No.108, Street No.3 in Dashmesh Nagar, Ferozepur City and in connection with the dispute of that house, he had met defendant No.1, clerk to an Advocate, who was an acquaintance with him. Pertaining to that dispute, defendant No.1 had obtained his signatures on some blank papers and misused the same by obtaining ₹70-80,000/- and on the basis of forged power of attorney had sold the house to defendant No.3. Apart from this, Kharaiti Lal had also moved an application to Tehsildar in October 2010 for cancelling the power of attorney and to prevent defendant No.1 from misusing the same. 4.3 Prayer was accordingly made by the plaintiff to pass the decree of declaration that Will dated 26.06.2010 in favour of defendant No.1 and Will dated 26.08.2010 in favour of defendant No.2 allegedly executed by Kharaiti Lal and power of attorney dated 07.05.2010, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 and the sale deed dated 01.06.2010, on the basis of that power of attorney in favour of defendant No.3 as executed by defendant No.1 were null and void documents and that defendants did not have any right to sell the property of Khairati Lal or to withdraw any amount from the bank accounts on the basis of the forged Wills. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the defendants from