1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the evidence produced by the respondent being beyond the scope of pleadings, therefore, no reliance can be placed thereon and the suit was required to be dismissed.

(2) Whether the subject matter of the dispute can not be decided in the absence of all the necessary parties. Since the plaintiff claimed Will in favour of the appellant to be invalid, therefore, she alone can not be held to be so legal heirs of the deceased and thus dispute could not have been decided in the absence of daughters of deceased Smt. Bhonchi and Smt. Bhujlan.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to this second appeal are that appellant herein, asserted Will dated 22.8.1995 alleged to be executed by Shri Dhari Ram, husband of the respondent in his favour and also in favour of the respondent in equal share. On its basis mutation No.389 was accepted and attested on 18.11.1995 to the exclusion of all other legal heirs. Respondent wife of the testator filed the suit challenging the Will and pleaded that she and her husband belonged to Ghirath community and used to earn their livelihood by cultivating the land. Thus, they were governed by Kangra Customary law in the matter of alienation and no male could alienate his property by way of Will, gift, sale etc. Thus, the Will in question was wrong, illegal and not binding on her right, title and interest and sought declaration that the mutation accepted and attested on the basis of Will was wrong and illegal.

3. The appellant resisted and contested the suit by raising the preliminary objections of maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, valuation etc. viz-a-viz questioning the locus-standi of the respondent to file the suit. On merits, it was contended that no such custom, as pleaded, is prevailing in the area, which disqualified the Ghirath community to alienate the property by way of Will. It was also averred that the appellant being the grand-son of said Shri Dhari Ram, was brought up by him in his village Arla, right from his childhood. He also served Shri Dhari Ram throughout his life and out of his love and affection, he executed the Will aforesaid in sound disposing state of mind without any threat, coercion or misrepresentation. The Will being genuine, legal and was binding upon all concerned. It was also contended that earlier Will was executed by said Shri Dhari Ram bequeathing his estate in favour of his daughters Bhonchi Devi and Bhujlan Devi, which was subsequently revoked by present Will. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. These facts were denied in replication filed by the plaintiff-respondent and even paras of the plaint were reiterated.

5. From the pleadings aforesaid, the parties were on the following issues:-

1. Whether Will of late Sh. Dhari Ram executed in favour of the defendant is hit by Kangra Customary Law, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether Sh. Dhari Ram has executed a valid registered Will? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

10. Relief.

6. The learned trial Court, after complete trial held issue No.1 in affirmative and others were in negative, as such suit was decreed to the effect that the defendant/appellant had no right, title or interest in the suit land and the Will dated 22.8.1995 Ext.D.1 was not a genuine document and the mutation accepted and attested thereupon is the result of fraud and misrepresentation, thus it was set aside. Consequently, the res