The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Sections 105, 107, and 109, in determining the validity of a 'Will' and its impact on property distribution.

This second appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment and order dated 19.3.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. 7th, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 1/2010, Smt. Madhu Marwaha and three others v. Brij Mohan Marwaha, as well as against the judgment and order rendered by the learned 4th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun dated 30.11.2009 in Original Suit No. 801/1999, Brij Mohan Marwaha v. Surendra Mohan Marwaha and others. Both the judgments, challenged herein, render the concurrent finding wherein the decree with costs was passed and the 'Will' dated 12.9.1996 was cancelled with the declaration of such 'Will' to be void and ineffective. In the judgment dated 30.11.2009, the counter-claim of Smt. Madhu Marwaha and Mayank Marwaha (wife and son of the deceased defendant Surendra Mohan Marwaha) was rejected with costs.

2. It is pertinent to mention that in the counter-claim (as amended vide order dated 26.5.2008), a decree was sought to declare the registered 'Will' dated 10.9.1996 as null and void alleging that the same had been obtained by fraud and coercion from the testator Smt. Shakuntala Marwaha (the mother of Brij Mohan Marwaha and Surendra Mohan Marwaha).

3. Though the judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and dismissing the counter-claim ought to have been challenged by way of filing two separate appeals, yet only one appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 1/2010 was filed. In such appeal, the prayer was made only in two lines and the same is as under:

'It is therefore respectfully prayed that the judgment dated 30.11.2009 is liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.'

4. Here it can be noticed that there was no specific prayer seeking the decree of the counter-claim. That appeal was found bereft of any force besides meritless. So, the same was dismissed by way of impugned judgment dated 19.3.2012.

5. Feeling aggrieved, this second appeal has now been filed only by Smt. Indira Sethi and Smt. Kamal Sethi, while Smt. Madhu Marwaha and Mayank Marwaha have chosen not to prefer the second appeal. So, they were added as pro forma defendants/respondents by way of moving an amendment application No. 8843/2012 later, which was allowed by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.7.2014.

6. I have heard learned Counsel of the defendants/appellants as well as the learned Counsel of the plaintiff/respondent. The entire matter was argued fully by learned Counsel for the parties at the stage of admission itself.

7. Though as many as six questions claiming the same to be the substantial questions of law have been formulated, but having appreciated the entire controversy as well as the legal point involved, in my considered view, not a single question of law, much less substantial in nature, arises in this appeal because the entire factual and legal controversy has been well discussed with sound reasons by both the courts below, and this Court too does concur with the views and findings expressed in the impugned judgments. However, for the satisfaction of learned Counsel of the appellant, as he laid much stress upon the interpretation of Sections 105 and 107 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, I would like to discuss and observe as under so far as the first question of law formulated as (A) in the amended memo of this second appeal is concerned. The said question reads as under:

'Whether the learned Courts below committed a mistake in not considering the effect of death of Sri Ravi Mohan, one of the legatees, during the lifetime of the testator Smt. Shakuntala Devi on the effect and operation of the alleged WILL dated 10-9-1996?'

8. For the sake of convenience, Sections 105 and 107 of the Act (supra) are reproduced as under:

'105. In what case legacy lapses-(1) If the legatee does not survive the testator, the legacy cannot take effect, but shall lapse and form part of the residue of the testator's property, unless it appears by the will that the testator inten