Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.:- This judgment will dispose of two appeals bearing RSA Nos. 1658 and 1795 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. In RSA No. 1658 of 2010, the suit was filed by Anil Malhotra against Dr. Chander Malhotra and others for possession of 1/6th share of the suit property by way of partition by metes and bounds. In this case, the trial court passed preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff holding him entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed and the suit filed by Anil Malhotra for 1/6th share in the suit property was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court have been impugned in appeal before this court.

3. In RSA No. 1795 of 2010, the suit was filed by Dr. Chander Malhotra and others against Anil Malhotra and others for mandatory injunction seeking revocation of license for living in the suit property. The same was dismissed by the trial court. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed and the suit was decreed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court has been impugned in appeal before this court.

4. Both the suits were clubbed and were decided by a common judgment by the trial court and even the appeals were also consolidated and decided by a common judgment, as the suit property is same. Both the appeals have been preferred by Anil Malhotra, as the suit filed by him seeking partition of the property was dismissed and the suit filed against him for mandatory injunction and possession was decreed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Beli Ram Malhotra was father of the parties. Vidya Rani was their mother. Vidya Rani acquired the property in dispute, i.e., B-XIX-160, Colonel Gurdial Singh road, near Activity School, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on 22.1.1973. She had five sons (one of the sons- Surinder Mohan Malhotra had pre-deceased her) and one daughter. Vidya Rani expired on 9.10.1997. The suit was filed by the appellant claiming share in the property left by Vidya Rani who, according to the appellant-plaintiff, died intestate. The appellant claimed 1/6th share in the property. Written statement was filed by brothers and father of the appellant pleading that in terms of the registered Will executed by Vidya Rani on 11.8.1995, the property was to be given to only three brothers of the appellant. The sister of the appellant filed separate written statement praying that the property be partitioned. She was supporting the case of the appellant. The appellant disputed the Will in the replication claiming that the same was forged and fabricated document.

6. The submission is that the primary question in the present litigation is as to whether the Will projected by the brothers of the appellant is a valid document and in case it is not, the property will have to be shared amongst all the legal heirs, Vidya Rani having died intestate. If the appellant succeeds, then automatically the second suit filed by the brothers of the appellant will have to be dismissed as the appellant will not remain in possession of the property merely as a licensee, rather, in his own right. Even if for arguments’ sake, the Will is upheld, still the appellant, being in possession of part of the suit property since long and having made substantial improvements by spending huge amount, even if he is a licensee, the same cannot be revoked. He submitted that following two substantial questions of law would arise in the present appeals:

“1. Whether the alleged Will dated 11.8.1995 is forged and fabricated document which is also not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and is shrouded with suspicious circumstances ?

2. Whether the license is revoked merely on the death of owner, as alleged ?”

7. Assailing the findings of the learned lower appellate court on the validity of the Will