The judgment establishes the importance of complying with legal requirements for proving the validity of a will and the need for positive evidence to establish property as ancestral coparcenary.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. Defendant no.1-appellant (Anjana Rani) has filed present regular second appeal against judgments passed by the courts below. Learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent- (Subhash Chander Jhanji) for declaration to the effect that he is joint owner of a residential house, details whereof have been given in the plaint. It was held that the residential house was an ancestral property in the hands of late Sh. Rattan Lal Jhanji, hence, although, a registeed testament excuted by him stands proved, however, does not result in bequeathing the suit property in favour of the appellant because the testator had no power to bequeath. Learned first appellate court has held that the registered will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore, appeal filed by Smt. Anjana Rani-appellant was dismissed whereas appeal filed by Sh. Subhash Chander Jhanji, respondent no.1 to that extent was allowed.

2. In the considered view of this court, following substantial questions of law arise for determination:-

(1) If an official posted in the office of Registrar under The Registration Act, 1908, gets signatures of the Testator and attesting witnesses on the endorsement to be signed at the time of registration of the Testament in his room in absence of the Registrar, the Testament becomes doubtful or invalid?

(2) Whether to prove that the property held by the members of a Joint Hindu family in their individual names, is a Joint Hindu Family property, is it sufficient to prove that the family resides in one house having a common ration card?

3. Facts in a nutshell are that late Sh. Rattan Lal Jhanji was common ancestor of the parties to the suit. Inter-se relationship between the parties can be understood from the following pedigree table as drawn in para 1 of the plaint:-

4. Subhash Chander Jhanji through the present suit claims that he is joint owner of a residential house on the basis of natural succession claiming that late Sh. Rattan Lal Jhanji was 'Karta' of Joint Hindu Family and the house is ancestral coparcenary and undivided Joint Hindu family property. He also claims that late Sh. Rattan Lal Jhanji did not execute will (Testament) in favour of any person.

5. The defendant no.1-appellant-Anjana Rani contested the suit by filing written statement claiming that the plaintiff is no longer a member of the Joint Hindu family and as he had severed his relationship with his father many years ago when late Sh. Rattan Lal Jhanji had to only sell the residential house at ridiculously low price to save the plaintiff from criminal proceedings for embezzlement of funds of Cooperative Store, Model Town, Ludhiana. She also claims that due to ill treatment of the plaintiff, late Sh. Rttan Lal Jhanji was forced to spend his last days of life with the appellant defendant no.1 in her matrimonial house at Nawanshehar along with his grand children (children of pre deceased son Hari Mohan) where he breathed his last. She claims that late Sh. Rattan Lal Jhanji ( her father) executed a registered testament dated 17.07.1981 bequeathing the house in question in her favour in the presence of attesting witnesses. It may be noted here that the remaining defendants supported the case of the plaintiff.

6. On appreciation of pleadings, learned trial court framed following issues:-

1. Whether the suit property is the coparcenary property of the parties? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is not a member of the Joint Hindu Family?OPD

3. Whether Rattan Lal executed a Will in favour of d