MEHAR CHAND Vs. CHANDER KANTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who sought for a declaration that the mutation entered after the death of the father granting to the contesting defendant -daughter an equal 1/3rd share along with him was erroneous. It was on the basis that the property was ancestral in character and the daughter had only a 1/9th share since the father had died before coming to the force Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. The plaintiff also relied on an alleged Will said to have been executed by the mother in respect of her share which, according to the plaintiff, was 4/9th share and as per the bequest, he had got whatever the mother was entitled to and the defendant -daughter was entitled only to 1/9th share.

(2.) AS regards the property which was held by the father, the Appellate Court had found that it was joint family property but all the same, it observed that mutation entered granting to the widow, son and daughter equally was correct but it proceeded to hold that the Will said to have been executed by the mother was not true. It, therefore, found that the mutation entering 1/3rd share in the daughter was not liable for interference.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that the grandfather Panju Ram had no right to execute the Will and it is not approved by Hindu Law. According to him, the principle of acceleration through bequest will make the property taken by the father as constituting the character of joint family property. I find the principle advanced to be wholly erroneous. The counsel refers to following judgments in support of his plea.