------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.395 of 2009. Dated of Decision: June 29, 2010. Rasilo Devi and others. …… Petitioners. Versus Onkar Chand and others. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?. For the Petitioners : Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (oral): Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners who are defendants in civil suit filed against them by respondents have challenged the Will set-up by the plaintiffs- respondents. They have pleaded that after execution of the alleged Will, there had been an agreement between the parties and the estate of the testator was inherited by the parties, who are the legal representatives of the testator, in accordance with that agreement. This plea has been specifically raised in the written statement, but no issue was framed. The issue that was framed by the trial court is with respect to the mutation that has been attested on the basis of the agreement. Sanctioning of the mutation is a consequence of the agreement. Agreement itself is required to be proved like any other - 2 - fact. Mutation by itself does not confer any title nor does it take away any. 3. Respondents-plaintiffs opposed the prayer for framing the issue covering the aforesaid plea, on the ground that the agreement was result of fraud, misrepresentation etc. They can prove this allegation while leading evidence in rebuttal. In any case, this cannot be a ground for not framing the issue covering the plea. 4. In view of the above stated position, the present petition is allowed, impugned order dated 30.5.2008 of the learned trial Court, to the extent it dismisses the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is set-aside. The order with regard to the disposal of another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure remains, as it has not been challenged by anybody. Trial Court shall now frame additional issue as claimed by the petitioners-defendants. 5. The petition is disposed of. CMP No.383 of 2009. In view of the disposal of the main petition, this application also stands disposed of. Interim order dated 29.5.2009 is vacated. (Surjit Singh) Judge June 29, 2010. (Pds)