The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty to prove the validity of a will and to dispel suspicious circumstances. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the devolution of property on all the children, including the daughters, and the necessity of impleading necessary parties in a suit for partition.

( 1 ). Suit for partition was filed by this appellant (plaintiff before the trial Court) impleading his two brothers, present respondents (defendants before trial court ). His suit was dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 3/12/1980. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit he challenged the same by way of this appeal, primarily, on the ground that the respondents herein had admitted that the appellant had 1/3 (one third) share in the property in question. In view of this admission coupled with the fact that his father and mother bequeathed the property in his favour it was not necessary for him to implead his sisters as party to that suit. Even otherwise under the Hindu succession Act sisters could not success to the property in question, nor the suit could be dismissed in view of the preliminary decree passed in suit No. 296/64 dated 28/05/1965.

( 2 ). In order to appreciate the challenge, we may have a quick glance to the facts relevant for the decision of this case. That one half share in house no. 2976, Kucha Maidas, Bazar Sitaram, Delhi was owned by prabhu Dayal, grand father of the parties and the remaining one half portion was owned by Shambu Dayal, brother of Prabhu Dayal. On death of Prabhu Dayal his share was inherited by late Shri Ram Richhpal, father of the parties. And the share of Shambu Dayal was inherited by his son Jai Kishan Dass. Father of the parties purchased the share of Jai Kishan Dass for a consideration of Rs. 8,000. 00 and thus became the owner of the entire house No. 2976, Kucha Maidas, Bazar Sitaram, delhi. Thus, father of the parties late Shri Ram richhpal Gupta acquired one half share in the house in his individual capacity and remaining half as ancestral property as Karta. Late Ram Richhpal filed a suit for partition regarding one half share acquired as ancestral property. The said suit was filed against his three sons i. e. appellant and respondents herein as well as against his wife Dhanno Devi. In the said suit No. 296/64 preliminary decree for partition was granted in favour of late Ram Richhpal. By the preliminary decree it was declared that the appellant herein along with these respondents and their mother held 1/5th share each in the half portion of the house which late Ram Richhpal acquired as ancestral property. Father of the parties vide his Will dated 24/03/1963 bequeathed life interest in the property in question to his wife smt. Dhanno Devi. It was further stated in the will that after her death the house in question would vest with the appellant herein in exclusion of others including respondents herein. Appellant herein was also appointed as the sole executor of the Will of his late father. Similarly Smt. Dhanno Devi mother of the parties vide registered Will dated 15/08/1965 bequeathed her moveable and immovable properties to the appellant herein with full right of alienation. She also appointed the appellant as the sole executor of her Will.

( 3 ). Ram Richhpal Gupta died on 3/07/1966 whereas Dhanno Devi died on 24/04/1975.

( 4 ). Parties were in joint possession of the house in question. Appellant filed suit for partition seeking 8/10th share in the house in question. He pleaded that respondents herein had only 1/10th share each in the house in question.

( 5 ). Respondents herein contested that suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the property in question could not be partitioned by metes and bounds. Moreover, value of the property had not been declared properly for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. That the suit for partition of the property in question in respect of one-half share was not maintainable because of the preliminary decree passed in Suit No. 296/64 decided on 28/05/1965. It was also denied that one-half share of the property was the self-acquired property of their father. According to respondents their father purchased one-half share from Jai Kishan Dass out of ancestral earnings. He became owner of the property as Karta of the Joint Hindu