JUDGMENT :

As per report of the Registry, steps have not been taken for the service of respondents No.9(c) & 16 and further, legal representatives of deceased-respondent No.10 have also not been brought on record. Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant submits that taking into consideration the fact that respondents No.9(c) and 16 are proforma respondents and further, deceased respondent No.10 is also proforma respondent, on his prayer, their names be deleted from the array of the respondents. Ordered accordingly.

Names of respondents No.9 (c), 10 and 16 are deleted from the array of respondents. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties.

Heard for the purpose of admission.

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the contesting defendants to the effect that Will dated 26.03.1999 was illegal, null and void and was procured by the predecessor of defendants No.3 to 7 and that the suit land was co-parcenery property, which oth