Will-Admission-If Will is admitted by opposite side then party can be dispensed with proving of the will
Framing of Issues-Once there is no denial or admission of fact then there is no requirement of framing issues on that aspect.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The appellants-plaintiffs is aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court, whereby the suit seeking following claim:-

“Suit for partition of properties situated in abadi of Village Hussainpur, P.O. Bhulana, Tehsil and District Kapurthala comprises of:-

(a) Residential house shown in red colour in enclosed site plan Mark-A and bounded as under:-

East:- Common Passage

West:- Sardool Singh & Kulwant Singh

North:- Khushal Singh

South:- Bhagat Singh

(b) Three rooms (used for store purpose) along with open space shown in green colour in the enclosed site plan Mark B and bounded as under:-

East:- passage, Deouri

West:- Sawinder Singh & Naranjan Singh

North:- Amar Singh son of Ishar Singh

South:- Khushal Singh

(c) Cattle room with open area shown in yellow colour in the enclosed site plan Mark C and bounded as under:-

East:- Manmohan Singh & Khushal Singh

West:- Bhagat Singh

North:- Common Passage

South:- Sohan & Parkasho.

(d) Haveli (unconstructed) in the share of plot and passage shown in blue colour in the enclosed site plan Mark D and bounded as under:-

East:- Kewal Singh son of Amar Singh

West:- Nirmal Singh, Khushal Singh

North:- Manmohan Singh son of Sadhu Singh

South:- Nirmal Singh, Khushal Singh

Along with all affixtures and all incidental rights connected with the above detailed property and after partition by metes and bounds, whatever portion from properties shown in above detailed site plans Mark A to Mark D enclosed with the plaint, comes to the share of plaintiff, its possession be given to the plaintiff.

AND

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant for ever from changing the nature by raising, demolishing any sort of construction, making alteration in any part of the above detailed properties and alienating specific portion and more than his share in the above detailed suit properties fully shown in the enclosed site plans Mark A to Mark D, till the partition is effected in between the parties.”

has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court, in essence, judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 30.04.2013, has been reversed.

2. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-plaintiffs submits that Santa Singh during his lifetime had executed the Will dated 04.08.1980. Santa Singh had inherited the property from his father Nihal Singh as per his share from the joint property. After his death, plaintiff and his brother as per the Will become owner in joint possession of the property in equal share as the remaining property had been bequeathed to the grandsons namely son of Prem Adhar Singh. The other brother Gurprem Singh died in the year 2001 and defendant No.1 being only son was/is entitled to inherit half share of the suit property. He never wanted share to be joint thus, sought partition of the property. He submits that trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, much less, on examination of the pleadings, decreed the suit as the defendant admitted the execution of the Will but lower Appellate Court misdirected and misread the contents of the Will, much less, pleadings, holding that Will was emphatically denied. In fact, the lower Appellate Court remained completely oblivious of the provision of Order 14 and as well as other provision of Code of Civil Procedure. During the course of arguments, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement qua part of the admission of Will. He further submits that admitted documents need not to be proved but only such documents on which parties are at variance, thus, judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

3. He further submits that lower Appellate Court has also non-suited the appellant on the ground that other LRs of Prem Adhar Singh were not impleaded. He submits that there was no occasion for the lower Appellate Court to arrive at such findings, had recital in the sale deed was read in proper per