D. RAJU, C.J.—The above two appeals have to be dealt with in common since not only they arise out of a common order passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti Districts on 7.2.1994 in Succession case No. 1 of 1991, but the learned Counsel appearing also have made common submissions subject to certain variations pertaining to the additional issues involved in FAO No. 144/94. The skeletal factual details necessary for appreciating the claims of the contesting parties are as follows:

2. One late Shri Gulab Chand, son of Shri Dassu Ram said to be the sole proprietor of a concern carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Dassu Ram Brij Lai Mahajan? in his individual capacity was said to have died on 15.7.1990 leaving behind his admittedly first wife Smt. Vidya Devi. He was also stated to have executed a registered Will dated 6.10.1989, He also was claimed to have contracted a second marriage with Pawna Devi and since he had no issues inspite of the first wife as also the alleged second wife, it is claimed that he adopted Niraj Kumar, who was aged about 6 months at the time of such adoption. In the Will said to have been executed by the deceased, as noticed earlier, he purported to have bequeathed his entire corpus of movable property in favour of the adopted son. Setting up and asserting a claim of adoption as also the Will, as noticed above, the minor claiming himself to be the adopted son represented by his next friend/natural guardian Smt. Pawna Devi, the alleged second wife, an application was filed under Section 372 of the indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities of the deceased Gulab Chand. About four items of debts in all amounting to Rs. 44,213/- was stated to be the liability and three items of amounts due to the deceased were also specified in respect of which the succession certificate was sought for. Those are: a sum of Rs. 33137.05 with interest which accrued thereon said to be lying to the current account in the State Bank of India, Mandi in the name of the deceased; Rs. 9,335/ - inclusive of subsequent interest, said to be lying in the Saving Bank Account in the name of the deceased in the Punjab National Bank at Mandi and Rs. 1 58,285.35 said to be the amount due to the deceased from the Chief Medical Officer Mandi.

3. The claim was contested by the 1st respondent in the said application, who as stated above, is indisputably the first wife of the deceased Gulab Chand. There were other objectors also, who were the brothers and other collaterals-of the deceased. So for as his wife Is concerned, she not only disputed the status of Pawna Devi as the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased, but contended that she was only a concubine and that the petitioner Niraj Kumar was not the adopted son of the deceased Gulab Chand and it is only the making and manipulation of Pawna Devi to grab the properties by setting up an adoption and the Will and that not only the so-called adopted is a myth and unsustainable in Saw and has no basis whatsoever but the Will also is manipulated one surrounded by so many suspicious circumstances not only in its execution but aiso in the manner of disposal, purported to be effected in the Will and therefore, the same has to be rejected as an illegal one and cannot be acted upon. She also appears to have projected a claim that it is a joint family property. The 1st respondent claimed that she is the sole heir of Gulab Chand and is entitled to inherit in entirety, the movable and immovable property left behind by him.

4. The other objectors in their objection petition also contended that Vidya Devi is the only legally-wedded wife of the deceased and Pawna Devi is only his concubine and that the business was a joint Hindu family business and the objectors being heirs of late Shri Brij Lai were members of the business, and they are entitled to their respective shares and the alleged adoption of the