The judgment establishes the rights of a childless widow to inherit her husband's property before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the validity of a Will executed by the widow. It also clarifies the concept of joint Hindu family coparcenary property.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment, RSA No.4647 of 2009, RSA No.3041 of 2010 and Cross Objection No.ll-C of 2012 shall stand disposed of.

2. Plaintiff as well as defendants have filed these set of appeals/cross objection.

3. In the considered view of this Court, questions of law which require consideration are:-

1) Whether a childless widow before coming into force of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1937') and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1956') was entitled to inherit the property of her husband or not?

2) Whether a testament (Will) executed by widow on the day she was having limited life estate and thereafter having become absolute owner on coming into force of the Act of 1956, would entitle the beneficiary to become owner of the property particularly when the bequest is with respect to ownership of the property bequeathed?

3) Whether abandonment of a right in the litigation on statement of the counsel at the time of final arguments has to be specific, categoric and not suffering from any vagueness?

4) Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court that the property is joint hindu family coparcenary property of the family is result of misreading and non-appreciation of evidence in proper perspective?

4. To understand inter se relationship between the parties, it would be appropriate to draw a pedigree table:-

5. It is apparent that Chiranji Lai son of Rur Mai died in the year 1933. He left behind Smt. Dhapan who also died in the year 1961. Plaintiff-predecessor-in-interest of the appellant i.e. Khazanchi Mai Jain filed this suit claiming that he is adopted son of Chiranji Lai, although he is natural son of Anoop Chand. He claimed that the entire property, a long list given in the plaint is a joint hindu family property and, therefore, plaintiff is owner to the extent of one half share. He also prayed for partition of the property by metes and bounds.

6. Defendants filed detailed written statements contesting the suit. It was pleaded by the defendants that the properties are not joint hindu family coparcenary properties. The claim of Khazanchi Mai Jain to the effect that he was adopted, was disputed and it was further pleaded that Khazanchi Mai Jain has also not succeeded to the properties of Dhapan on the basis of the testament (Will).

7. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence, decided the suit. Learned trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties are joint hindu family coparcenary properties. The Court further held that the registered alleged Will executed by Dhapan would not result in bequeathing the properties in favour of the plaintiff. It was further held that plaintiff has failed to prove adoption in the family of Chiranji Lai. Thus, the trial Court dismissed the suit in entirety.

8. However, learned First Appellate Court has modified the judgment passed by the learned trial Court while upholding the findings ofthe trial Court that there was no adoption of the plaintiff and late Smt. Dhapan was not competent to execute the Will. However, first appellate court has held that since Khazanchi Mai Jain is natural son of Anoop Chand, therefore, being member of joint hindu family is entitled to l/18th share in the agricultural land except agricultural land mentioned in para 2 (B) of the plaint. Preliminary decree for partition has been passed to the extent of 1/18th share with respect to the suit properties mentioned in sub para (D) to (P) except sub para (K). It has further been ordered that alienation effected during the pendency of the suit will be subject to adjustment at the time of final partition, keeping in view the value of the property.

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below and the voluminous record.

10. Alongwith the appeal, application for additional evide