The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between co-parcenary property and self-acquired property, and the requirements for proving a 'Will' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1925.

Rohit Arya, J.

This appeal by defendants No.2 (since dead), 5, 6, 7 & 8 is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 26/09/2002 passed in civil suit No.51A/2001 by II Additional District Judge, Ujjain, decreeing the suit to the extent that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for 3/10th share in the suit house No.44/1 (described in paragraph 45 of the judgment) and agricultural land admeasuring 0.648 Are falling in survey No.501/2 situated at village Jiyapur, tahsil & district Ujjain. Likewise, the defendants No.3 and 4 each are declared to have title and possession of 1/20th share with consequential relief of the nature of option available to the parties for exchange by mutual consent and the agricultural land be demarcated by the revenue authorities in the presence of parties, accordingly.

2. To appreciate the relationship amongst the parties, it is necessary to embody the pedigree as explained in paragraph 1 of the plaint:

Shobaram (dead)
Bhagirath (dead)	Nathulal (dead)	Punamchand (dead)
		Bherulal (dead)			Anokhilal
Premnarayan (defendant 1) (defendant 4)	Vishnushankar (defendant 2)	Girdharilal (Plaintiff)	Rampyaribai (defendant 3)	Savitribai

3. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are to the effect that father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 had died on 12/12/1993 (wrongly mentioned as 12/12/1992 in paragraph 2 of the judgment). House No.44 situated at Lakshmibai Marg, Malipura, Ujjain and the agricultural land falling in survey No.501/2 admeausring 0.648 situated in village Jiyapur, tahsil & disrtrict Ujjain (boundaries of house are well described in paragraph 3A & details of land described in paragraph 3B of the plaint) are subject matter of the suit. As per plaint averments, the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4, the original owner thereof was late Shobharam. He had three sons, namely; Bhagirath, Nathulal and Punamchand. Punamchand had two sons, namely; Bherulal and Anokhilal. After death of Punamchand, the property (paragraph 3A of the plaint) was partitioned by way of family settlement between his sons; Bherulal and Anokhilal followed by written partition. A part of the house numbered as 44A had fallen to the share of Bherulal and the other half had fallen to the share of Anokhilal numbered as 44 and entry to that effect was also made in the municipal record. Since then, they are in possession of their respective portions. It is further averred that the suit property being ancestral property, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 had a claim for title and possession thereof as coparceners. The cause of action for filing the suit arose at the time defendants No. 5 to 8 had filed an application in the Municipal Council for mutation on the strength of a 'Will' dated 25/11/1993 allegedly propounded by late Bherulal. The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 had objected to the same, on several grounds, viz; (i) Bherulal had no right to bequeath the suit property; co-parcenary property, through the 'Will'; (ii) as a matter of fact, Bherulal never propounded the alleged 'Will'; (iii) the 'Will' is forged and fabricated; and (iv) Bherulal physically and mentally was also not of sound mind for propounding the 'Will'. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual matrix, the instant suit was filed.

4. Defendants No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 had filed a joint written statement and denied the plaint allegations inter alia contending that the suit property is not the co-parcenary property of joint Hindu family. As a matter of fact, house No.44, a part of the suit property (described in paragraph 3A of the plaint) though originally ancestral property but, was part