Brijlal died on 5th November, 1976, and on the basis of the Will executed by him, the appellants moved an application for mutation of the bequeathed properties in their names.
The defendants appellants herein filed a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court on 3rd October, 1983, and the same was also dismissed on 6th February, 2006, affirming the judgment and order of the Appellate Court.
The suit was duly companytested by the appellants herein by filing written statement.
On 2nd January, 1978, the respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for declaration that the registered Will dated 5th August, 1972, had been procured by practising fraud.
The respondent No.
Except for his youngest son, Onkar Prasad, all the other sons were allegedly separated from him and were staying separately.
Brijlal was staying with Onkar Prasad and excluding the descendants of his other children executed the said Will dated 5th August, 1972, in favour of his grand children through Onkar Prasad.
An appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession on the disputed property of his share?
All the aforesaid issues were decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.
While deciding issue No.
The dispute involves a registered Will dated 5th August, 1972, executed in favour of the appellants by one Brijlal deceased , who had four sons.
10058 of 2006 Leave granted.
This appeal involves a dispute between the parties who are related to each other, having a companymon ancestor.
Whether the suit was undervalued and the companyrt fee paid is insufficient?
Aggrieved by the decision in the suit, the plaintiff respondent No.
On 29th April, 1977, the Tehsildar passed an order for mutation of the properties in the name of the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid Will dated 5th August, 1972.
1 herein, preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Aligarh, which was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed without deciding the question of limitation which had been decided against the plaintiff respondent No.1 and in favour of the defendants appellants herein.
1, who is one of the grand sons of the testator through another son, Shanti Swarup, also filed an application for mutation, which was rejected.
Altamas Kabir,J. CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2815 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
