(A) Will – Coparcener – A coparcener can execute a Will regarding the coparcenary property. Further held that it was never pleaded that Testator had executed a Will exceeding his share, hence, the Will cannot be held to be bad on the ground that the Will exceeded the share of testator. (Para 20, 23)
(B) Will – Nature of Property – Ancestral Property or Self acquired Property – Since, Dhani Ram had acquired the property from his father; therefore, the nature of property in his hand will be ancestral qua his sons. This mutation was attested regarding Mauja Khadeen, where the suit land is located. No evidence was laid by the defendants to prove that Dhani Ram had acquired the property through his efforts. Hence, the plea that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Dhani Ram has to be accepted as correct. (Para 19)
(C) Will – Sound Mind at old age – The old age of the executant does not show that he was not in a sound disposing state of mind – Witness (Para 37)
(D) Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will in favour of grandchildren – The testator had executed a Will earlier in favour of his sons He also wanted to give something to his grandchildren; therefore, he was executing a Will in favour of his grandchildren. The reason assigned by testator to execute the Will in favour of his grandchildren cannot be said to be illusory. he would have some affinity with his grandchildren and the execution of the Will in their favour cannot be said to be suspicious. (Para 44)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 103 HP
Partap Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & Ors.
RSA No.575 of 2008-Decided on 19-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-103-HP.pdf
