The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing the conversion of a life interest into an absolute interest, and the implications of a conveyance deed in establishing absolute ownership.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 2615/2018 (under Order XII Rule 6 CPC-by plaintiff)

1. Plaintiff Chanchal Chopra has filed the suit CS(OS) 122/2017 seeking partition of the suit property i.e. E-79, Anand Niketan admeasuring 197.50 sq.yds. and declaring the plaintiff to be owner of 1/4th share of suit property besides injunction, rendition of accounts, etc. The defendant No.1 and 2 are the brothers of plaintiff and defendant No.3 her sister. During the pendency of the present suit plaintiff passed away and thus her legal heirs i.e. her husband, son and daughter have been impleaded as her legal heirs.

2. Case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that the father of the deceased plaintiff and defendants, Late Shri Ram Chand Dugal executed his last Will and testament dated 29th June, 1998 bequeathing his entire estate including the suit property in favour of his wife Late Smt. Agyawati Duggal absolutely. Late Shri Ram Chand Duggal passed away on 1st December, 1999 and thus as per his Will on his death, his entire estate devolved solely and exclusively on his wife late Smt. Agyawati Duggal. Smt. Agyawati Duggal had applied for conversion of suit property from leasehold to freehold on 1st June, 2007 whereafter a conveyance deed dated 8th October, 2007 was executed in respect of the suit property which thereafter stood mutated in the name of Smt. Agyawati Duggal. Late Smt. Agyawati Duggal passed away on 16th March, 2012 without leaving behind any Will or testament and leaving behind 5 legal heirs in Class 1. Further, after the death of Late Smt. Agyawati Duggal, elder sister of the plaintiff and defendants Ms. Prem Lata died issueless on 7th August, 2016 without leaving behind any Will or testament, thus leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as her sole legal heirs. Plaintiff thus claims that the plaintiff and the three defendants are entitled to 1/4th Share in the entire estate of Late Smt. Agyawati Duggal. It is further stated that the suit property comprises of three floors and the terrace; the ground floor comprising of three rooms out of which one room and one bathroom have been rented out and the two other rooms on the ground floor are lying unused. Defendant No.1 and 2 who are holding all the movable assets of the deceased mother including her bank lockers, fixed deposit, bank accounts, mutual funds, jewellery, etc., are also receiving the rental income from the one room rented out on the ground floor and despite the plaintiff seeking her share the defendants have failed to give the same.

3. Written statements have been filed to the plaint by defendant No.1, 2 and 3. Defendant No.3 in her written statement has supported the stand of the plaintiff. However, the defendant No.1 and 2 i.e. the two brothers claim that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are not entitled to any share in the suit property belonging to Late Shri R.C. Duggal for the reason in his life time Shri R.C. Duggal executed a Will dated 7th May, 1979 whereby he bequeathed the suit property on the defendant No.1 and 2 and only a life interest in the suit property was given to Smt. Agyawati Duggal who died on 16th March, 2012 and after her death as per the registered Will dated 7th May, 1979 the suit property devolved on defendant No.1 and 2 in equal shares. It is further stated that the Will dated 29th June, 1998 relied upon by the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document and does not bear the signatures of Late Shri Ram Chand Duggal. The Will has not been filed in original and therefore is a fabricated document. The Will dated 7th May, 1979 has been signed by the Late father of the parties, which is duly attested by two attesting witnesses. At the time of execution of the Will dated 7th May, 1979 father of the plaintiff and defendants was in sound disposing mind. Plaintiff in the plaint has concealed the material fact of execution of the Will dated 7th May, 1979. It is further claimed that based on the forged and fabricated Will dated 29th June, 1998 the plaintiff and defendan