The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the expressions 'Life Interest' and 'In Lieu of Maintenance' under the Hindu Succession Act, and the importance of the recitals in the will in determining the testator's intentions.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal bearing No.2365 of 1992, COCP No.1061 of 2000 and XOBJC No.4 and 8- C of 1994.

2. The facts are being taken from RSA No.2365 of 1992 as all the aforementioned controversy has arisen from the decision of civil suit no.372 of 1984.

3. Shanti Devi widow of Hans Raj instituted the suit for declaration claiming ownership in respect of following immovable properties (five in number) of late Sh. Hans Raj:-

“(i) House No.WB-27, Khajooran Gali, Jalandhur.

(ii) House No.WB-22, Khajooran Gali, Jalandhur.

(iii) Two shops and Chaubara situated in Ranik Bazar, Jalandhur under tenancy bounded : East Rainik Bazar, Jalandhur under tenancy bounded : East Rainik Bazar; West Gainda Mal, North: Shop Muniari; South: Shop Muniari, bearing property No.WB-1 (B-V-170-M3/17E).

(iv) One shop situated in Rainik Bazar, Jalandhur under tenancy bounded: East : Shop Lyalpurian; West : Rainik Bazar, North : Shop Bajaj (Cloth) South : Chowk.

(v) ½ share out of khasra No.17//112(2-17), 14(6-5), 243 (42-18), 244(27-14), 254-1(4-8), 245(112-14), 258(1-1), 246 (46-4), 259(1-1), 260/2(4-3), 249-5, 1364(3-3), 1368(0-8)-3- 11.”

on the premise that Hans Raj, was owner of the aforementioned properties, who died on 3.2.1974, had executed a Will dated 9.1.1974 in respect of all the properties. Shanti Devi laid claim to all the properties as per the Will, ibid, executed by Hans Raj except two shops along with chaubara No.WB-1, Rainik Bazar Jalandhur which was bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1/Sohan Lal as the recital of the Will envisaged that after death of plaintiff, Jagan Nath son of Hans Raj, was to succeed to the properties. Jagan Nath was permitted to live in house No.WB-22 as licencee. However, Jagan Nath died and the possession continued with Dinesh, his son and widow Aarti alias Sudesh Rani/defendant no.3. The dispute arose between the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 3 regarding the property. It is on account of that fact, necessity arose to claim declaration and permanent injunction.

4. The suit was contested by defendants no.2 and 3, appellant herein, by denying that Sohan Lal-defendant no.1 was son of Hans Raj. He was “pichhlag” son of Hans Raj, meaning thereby that Shanti Devi when married Hans Raj had brought along with her Sohan Lal. The execution of the Will dated 09.01.1974 was denied but propounded another Will dated 01.02.1974 as earlier Will was cancelled. The second Will dated 01.02.1974 was registered and as per the aforementioned Will, the plaintiff was given “life interest” in the property to receive the benefits from House No.WB-27 without any power to sell or mortgage the property which on her demise was to devolve upon Jagan Nath.

5. Since the parties were at variance, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether deceased Hans Raj executed a valid Will on 9.1.74? OPP

1-A Whether Sohan Lal defendant is son of Hans Raj deceased? OPD

1-B Whether Sohan Lal defendant is “Pichhlag” son of Hans Raj deceased? If so its effect? OPD

1-C Whether the suit property has been correctly described in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether said Hans Raj also executed another Will dated 1.2.74. It so, what effect? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for? OPP

4. Relief.”

6. The plaintiff -Shanti Devi (since deceased) placed on record Will dated 09.01.1974 (Ex.P1); plans of suit property as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 and the school leaving certificate of Sohan Lal as Ex. PX. but did not examine any witnesses in support of the aforementioned Will.

7. On the contrary, defendants brought on record the Will dated 01.02.1974 as Ex.D1 and in order to prove the same, examined various other witnesses including DW3-Gurmukh Singh and DW4- Ved Parkash attesting witnesses of the Will, Satwant Singh DW5 scribe of the document.

8. The trial Court on the basis of the aforementioned documentary evidence brought on record partly decreed the suit on the premise that the plaintiff faile