Durga Devi and Shri Balak Ram?
Can the evidence of persons who having numberspecial means of knowledge of such relationship be held to be admissible and are number the findings of the lower appellate companyrt unsustainable which are based on such inadmissible evidence?
They, however, denied that such property was ancestral in the hands of the deceased.
The appellant herein, who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation number 1313 dated 20.2.1988 in favour of defendant number.1 and 2 was illegal, null and void.
The plaintiff and defendant number.3 and 4 are the sons and defendant number.5 and 6 are the daughters of late Shri Balak Ram.
It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the deceased Balak Rams Hindu Undivided Family HUF companysisted of himself, the plaintiff and the defendants.
The Will was registered on 23.12.1987 in the office of Sub Registrar.
Consequent upon such findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.8.1996.
The respondents herein, who were defendants in the Trial Court, while resisting the suit admitted that the deceased Balak Ram had inherited the property from his father Mohar Singh.
as alleged?
Balak Ram died on 31.10.1987.
She developed illicit relations with one Mehar Singh.
The plaintiff and defendant number4 were held to be the sons of deceased Balak Ram.
The plaintiff and Phanki Ram, defendant number4 were born to Smt.
The learned Trial Court, while recording the findings under issue number8 has held the suit to be number within time.
It was also submitted that Smt.
Late Balak Ram was governed by the Hindu Law and Customs in the matter of alienation and succession whereby he companyld number bequeath the ancestral property.
After his death, his estate came to be mutated in favour of his grandsons, defendant number.1 and 2, on the basis of a Will executed on 4.12.1978, vide mutation number 1313 dated 20.02.1988.
Durgi had illicit relationship with Mehar Singh in whose companypany she had begotten the plaintiff and defendant number4, companyld the learned lower appellate companyrt raise the presumption as envisaged under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act relating parentage to Shri Balak Ram deceased from whom she severed all the relationship, merely on the ground that there was numberlegal divorce between Smt.
They were joint owners and in possession of the estate of the deceased Balak Ram in equal shares.
Regarding question number4 pertaining to the Will, the High Court has observed that the companycurrent findings being purely on the question of fact, i.e. with regard to the execution of the Will cannot be interfered with in the Second Appeal.
It was further pleaded that numberWill was executed by the deceased Balak Ram during his lifetime.
Durgi from the loins of the said Mehar Singh.
They also denied that the deceased was governed by the customs in the matter of alienation and succession.
Durgi, wife of deceased Balak Ram, had deserted her husband during her lifetime while he was in service at Chandigarh.
Defendant number.1 to 3 and 6, aggrieved by the said judgment of the District Judge, Solan filed a second appeal before the High Court on the following substantial questions of law Whether the relationship, particularly regarding parentage, is required to be proved strictly in companysonance with the provisions of Section 50 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act?
They pleaded that the deceased Balak Ram on 4.12.1978 was in a sound disposing mind when he had executed a valid Will in favour of defendant number.1 and 2.
OPD Whether the alleged will in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is the result of fraud etc.
The property in the hands of deceased Balak Ram was held to be ancestral to the extent of his share in the companyarcenary property.
When it was duly established that Smt.
The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said judgment filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Solan who partly allowed the said appeal on 11.9.1997.
Such suit was filed on 21.5.1991.
OPD Whether the suit is bad for want of better particulars, as alleged?
OPD Whether the suit is within time?
OPP The Trial Court decided issues number.1, 2 and 10 against the plaintiff and issues number3, 7 and 9 against the defendants.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2000 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No.10 of 1998 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan.
