Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2687 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar v. Soni Ram

2019-10-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Appeal No. 13/2013 whereby, the appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 43/2007 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration of cancellation of the registered Will. 2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the impugned judgments. 3. The appellants herein, filed the suit, questioning the validity of the registered Will dated 11.03.2005 executed by Munshi Ram in favour of the respondents-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Soni Ram and Bhala Ram (being the sons of the respondent No. 3 Balwant Ram). 4. As per the admitted facts available on record, Munshi Ram owned 25 bighas of land in Murraba No. 18 Chak 8 SJM (B) of Tehsil Anoopgarh. He executed a registered Will for 6.05 Bighas from the said chunk of land in favour of his grandsons Soni Ram and Bhala Ram (the defendants). The appellants herein filed the suit for declaration and cancellation of registered Will claiming that the Will was procured by fraud; that Munshi Ram was not in a fit mental and physical condition to execute the Will. He was residing with the plaintiff No. 2 Dana Ram since long. The respondents- defendants never took care of Munshi Ram in his lifetime and thus there was no cause for him to execute the Will in favour of the respondents. Munshi Ram never expressed between 11.03.2005 to 19.12.2005 i.e. upto the date of his death that he had executed any such Will in favour of Soni Ram and Bhala Ram. It was further asserted that Munshi Ram was taken by the respondent No. 3 Balwant Ram to the Tehsil office and the bank under a fictitious belief that loan was being procured by keeping his land mortgaged and keeping him in dark, he was made to execute the Will. The plaintiffs prayed in the suit that the Will deserved to be cancelled as being fabricated. 5. The defendants appeared before the trial Court and controverted the submissions made by the plaintiffs by filing a written statement. The plaintiffs prayed in the suit that the Will deserved to be cancelled as being fabricated. 5. The defendants appeared before the trial Court and controverted the submissions made by the plaintiffs by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that the Will in question was a registered document and while executing the same, Munshi Ram was hale and hearty both mentally as well as physically. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Soni Ram and Bhala Ram served Munshi Ram for a pretty long time before he passed away and that is why upon being pleased by their selflessness, Munshi Ram executed the Will for a part of his self acquired land in the name of these defendants whereas the remaining land was left for his other legal representatives. The defendants No. 1 & 2 were in possession of the land. The stamp for preparing the Will was purchased by Munshi Ram. On these grounds, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. The trial Court framed the following issues for determination:- 1- vk;k oknhx.k olh;r fnukad 11-03-05 dks fof/k fo:) ,oa oknhx.k ds gdksa ij ÁHkkoghu o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djokus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ 2- vk;k oknhx.k Áfroknh la0 1 rk 3 dks eqa'khjke ds uke dh fookfnr Hkwfe dk bardky rFkkdfFkr olh;r fnukad 11-03-05 ds vk/kkj ij Áfroknh la0 1 o 2 ds uke ls u djokus gsr ikcan djokus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ 3- vuqrks"k \ 4- vk;k okn oknhx.k {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt ;ksX; gS \ 6. The plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses to support their case and exhibited 19 documents. The defendants examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 1 document in rebuttal. After evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit by judgment dated 04.03.2013 which has been affirmed in appeal by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2019. Hence, this second appeal. 7. The primary contention of Shri Choudhary, learned counsel representing the appellants for assailing the impugned judgments was that the defendants admitted in their evidence that Munshi Ram was taken to the bank for previous few days before the execution of the Will in question. Hence, this second appeal. 7. The primary contention of Shri Choudhary, learned counsel representing the appellants for assailing the impugned judgments was that the defendants admitted in their evidence that Munshi Ram was taken to the bank for previous few days before the execution of the Will in question. He urged that this admission makes it clear that Munshi Ram was misled into appending his thumb impressions on the Will by keeping him in dark that he was being made to put his thumb impressions on the loan documents and hence, the Will is fabricated. Thus, as per him, the appeal is fit to be admitted. 8. I have considered the submissions of Shri Choudhary and have carefully perused the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in the impugned judgments. I am of the firm view that merely because Munshi Ram was taken to the bank a few days before executing the Will in question, the execution thereof cannot be called into question. It is an admitted factual position that out of total 25 bighas of land owned by Munshi Ram, the plaintiffs were in possession of 18 bighas. In addition thereto, there was another chunk of land owned by Munshi Ram ad measuring 18 bighas on which, Dana Ram was having possession. The plaintiffs witness No. 1 Mahendra Kumar admitted that Balwant Ram father of Soni Ram and Bhala Ram was having a share in the said chunk of land as well. It was further admitted that the mutation of the disputed land ad measuring 6.05 bighas was entered in the name of the beneficiaries i.e. Soni Ram and Bhala Ram and that the appeal preferred against such mutation had also been rejected. The witness also admitted that the order passed by the appellate ' Court i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority was not challenged any further. The plaintiffs witness No. 2 Dana Ram admitted the fact that the disputed Will bore the thumb impression of his father. It is also an admitted position that no FIR etc. was lodged regarding the alleged fraudulent execution of the Will. The defendants Bhala Ram and Balwant Ram themselves appeared in evidence and categorically stated that the Will was executed by Munshi Ram of his own free Will and volition and that he was not suffering from any kind of ailment when the Will was executed. was lodged regarding the alleged fraudulent execution of the Will. The defendants Bhala Ram and Balwant Ram themselves appeared in evidence and categorically stated that the Will was executed by Munshi Ram of his own free Will and volition and that he was not suffering from any kind of ailment when the Will was executed. They denied the suggestion of the plaintiffs that the Will was got executed by keeping Munshi Ram in dark. The Will was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Anoopgarh and hence there is a presumption regarding the genuineness thereof. It is my firm opinion that plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence to show that Munshi Ram was misled or misguided by the defendants or by any circumstance which could have persuaded him to bequeath the land in question in their favour. 9. After having appreciated the submissions of Shri Choudhary, I am of the firm view that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity, error or perversity nor does the second appeal involve any substantial question of law justifying its admission. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.