JUDGMENT Vyom Prakash Gupta, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Dharamsala, dated 26th February, 1979, by which the appeal of Smt. Mukti plaintiff has been accepted and she has been granted a decree for joint possession to the extent of i/6th share in the disputed property. The Additional District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Dalhousie, by which the suit of Smt. Mukti had been dismissed on 5th March, 1977. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mali, who was the father of the parties and husband of one Smt. Dhelan (now deceased) was the owner of the property mentioned in the plaint. Smt, Mukti one of the daughters of Mali filed a suit claiming that she is entitled to get l/7th share of the property owned by her father Mali because Mali had left behind one widow, Smt. Dhelan, and six daughters including Smt. Mukti plaintiff herself. Smt. Dhelan and the other five daughters were arrayed as defendants in the suit. Smt. Gilmo, the present appellant, contested the suit of the plaintiff and set up a will, dated 25th July, 1959, alleged to have been executed by Mali deceased in her favour. It was further alleged by Smt. Gilmo that by virtue of this will she is the sole owner of the disputed property. Smt. Dhelan, who was one of the defendants, died during the pendency of the suit, and as the parties to the litigation were the heirs of Smt. Dhelan, therefore, her name was expunged from the array of the defendants. The factum of the valid execution and the genuineness of the will set up by Smt. Gilmo was denied by the plaintiff. As such, on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: "1. Whether Mali deceased had made any valid will on 25-7-1959, in favour of Gilmo defdt. No. 7, if so, its effect on the suit? 1-A, Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for joint possession to the extent of share claimed in the plaintiff? 2. Relief. 3. Whether Mali deceased had made any valid will on 25-7-1959, in favour of Gilmo defdt. No. 7, if so, its effect on the suit? 1-A, Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for joint possession to the extent of share claimed in the plaintiff? 2. Relief. 3. The Sub-Judge 1st Class after considering the contentions of both the patties and the evidence on the record came to a finding that the will, dated 25m July, 1959, Exhibit PA, was valid and genuine and that according to this will, Smt. Gilmo is the sole owner of the property in dispute and upon this finding the suit of Smt. Mukti was dismissed, with no orders as to costs, on 5th March, 1977. 4. Smt. Mukti filed an appeal and the Additional District Judge vide his judgment, dated 26th February, 1979, held that the will Exhibit AP was validly executed by Mali deceased in favour of Smt. Gilmo. The learned Additional District Judge, however, held that tins will though legally and validly executed could only come into operation after the death of Smt. Dhelan, and as tns succession could not remain in abeyance, therefore, the said will had become invalid and inoperative and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 19>6 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply to the property of Mali. Therefore, taking this legal position into consideration, the learned Additional District Judge held that Smt. Mukti was entitled to l/6th share of the property of Mali deceased and thus the appeal of Smt. Mukti was accepted and siie was granted a decree for joint possession to the extent of l/6th share, and the parties were iett to bear their own costs. 5. In this second appeal before me, both the counsel for the parties did not attack the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the valid execution and the genuineness of the will, Exhibit PA, and only the legal proposition as to the effect and the construction to be placed on Exhibit PA was argued. 6 Shri Kedar Ishwar learned counsel for the appellant contended that Smt. Dhelan was not possessed of any property and that the will, if read as a whole, clearly conveys that the intention of Mali deceased was to the effect that he was bequeathing the whole of his property to Smt. Gilmo only. 6 Shri Kedar Ishwar learned counsel for the appellant contended that Smt. Dhelan was not possessed of any property and that the will, if read as a whole, clearly conveys that the intention of Mali deceased was to the effect that he was bequeathing the whole of his property to Smt. Gilmo only. It was further contended by the learned counsel that Smt. Dhelan, the wife of Mali, was a consenting party to this testament, and that both Mali and Smt. Dhelan wanted that their property should be enjoyed by Smt. Gilmo after their death and that Smt. Gilmo should continue to serve them during their life time. It was further contended by the learned counsel that once the will is found to have been validly executed by the courts below then in that case the succession to the property of Mali cannot be governed by the provisions of section 8 of the Act because this section is only applicable to intestate successions. The learned counsel further contended that even two persons can make a joint will but in that case it will be construed as if two wills have been separately executed by two executants regarding their properties. This argument was further develop ed by the learned counsel and it was contended that on the death of Mali the property of Mali deceased could either vest with Smt. Gilmo or in the alternative with Smt. Dhelan on the condition that after the death of Smt. Dhelan, Smt. Gilmo was to become its full owner, i. e. the operation of the will was postponed till after the death of Smt. Dhelan. On these submissions, it was contended that after having found the will to be valid and genuine, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be granted any relief and that grant of any relief to her will amount to not giving effect to the will or the real intention of the deceased. 7. On these submissions, it was contended that after having found the will to be valid and genuine, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be granted any relief and that grant of any relief to her will amount to not giving effect to the will or the real intention of the deceased. 7. Shri Chhabil Dass learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and contended that the will, Exhibit PA, is a joint will and the same could only take effect after the death of Smt. Dhelan, but as no property has been bequeathed to Smt. Dhelan, therefore, on the death of Mali, the succession could not remain in abeyance and as such, by the general law of succession Smt. Mukti will succeed to l/7th share of the property, and similarly Smt. Dhelan will also succeed to l/7th share of the property on the death of Mali. It was further contended by him that after the death of Smt. Dhelan, her property, i. e. l/7th share, will be inherited by Smt. Gilmo only. In other words, Shri Chhabil Dass learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents frankly conceded that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge granting decree for l/6th share in the property of Mali is wrong and that his client, Smt. Mukti, could only be granted a decree for l/7th share only. He further contended that the decree of the learned Additional District Judge could only be modified to that extent. 8. I have carefully considered that contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. As the genuineness and the valid execution of the will Exhibit PA is not disputed, therefore, the only question which is involved in this case is as to what is the legal effect of the contents of the will Exhibit PA and as to what was the real intention of the testators, i. e. Mali and Smt. Dhelan. It is an admitted fact that Smt. Dhelan was the wife of Mali and that both of them were living together and that the parties to this litigation are their daughters. It is an admitted fact that Smt. Dhelan was the wife of Mali and that both of them were living together and that the parties to this litigation are their daughters. The contents of Exhibit PA have to be gathered from the wording of the document and for interpreting this document one has to take into account the real intention of the executants- A reading of the document, Exhibit PA, clearly establishes that the real intention of Mali and Smt Dhelan, the testators, was that their daughter Smt. Gilmo should inherit the property after their death but to avoid any controversy both Mali and Smt, Dhelan have jointly executed this document and have signed and thumb marked the same respectively. In clause 2 of the document it is clear that the property of both these executants was to be inherited by Smt. Gilmo after their death. The will, Exhibit PA, is, in fact, a joint will executed by the two testators and both have clearly stated about their intentions to the effect that Smt. Gilmo, their daughter, will be their sole heir after their death. As this is a joint will and not a mutual will inter se between the testators, therefore, naturally after the death of Mali the property of Mali will devolve upon Smt. Gilmo and the maximum we can conclude is that Smt. Dhelan was a consenting party to this document qua the property of Mali and it was only qua the property of Smt. Dhelan that the will was to take effect after her death. The execution of joint will by two testators is not unknown to law and this has very clearly been laid down in Rajeshwar Misser and others v. Sukhdeo Missir, AIR 1947 Patna 449, Leo Sequiera v. Magdalene Sequiera Bai and others, AIR 1971 Mysore 143, Kochu Govindan Kaimal & others v. Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Ammaand others, AIR 1959 SC 71 and Raman Nadar Viswanathan Nadar and others v. Snehappoo Rasalamma and others, AIR 1970 SC 1959. The perusal of these authorities clearly lays down that the will in dispute has to be treated as a joint will and not as a mutual will. The perusal of these authorities clearly lays down that the will in dispute has to be treated as a joint will and not as a mutual will. If this document is treated as a joint will by the two executants then automatically after the death of Mali the property of Mali will vest in the legatee, i. e. Smt. Gilmo and if there was any property of Smt. Dhelan then upon her death the same was also to devolve upon Smt. Gilmo. In this particular case, Smt. Dhelan is also dead and it is admitted by both the parties that Mali was the sole owner of the disputed property and that, in fact, Smt. Dhelan did not have any property. I have not been able to subscribe to the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, because if once it is held that the document, Exhibit PA, is a will and is a valid document then naturally it will be effective qua the property of Mali upon his death as it is a joint will and the operation of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is clearly excluded because this section cannot apply to successions governed by wills and the same is only applicable if a male Hindu dies intestate. In case of wills, the courts have always to look into the real intentions of the testators and have to give effect to the same and interpret the document in a manner so that the real intentions of the testators are carried out. As already stated, the document, Exhibit PA, clearly states that the real intention of both the testators was to benefit Smt. Gilmo to the exclusion of all others and in view of this matter once the will is held to be valid and genuine then the property of Mali can only be inherited by Smt. Gilmo. Even if the argument is stretched to the extent that Smt. Gilmo was to inherit the property of Mali after the death of her mother, Smt. Dhelan, then in that case too the will Exhibit PA will be quite effective and valid after the death of Smt. Dhelan because wills in which the inheritance is postponed are not invalid as has already been held in Rajeshwar Misser and others and Leo Sequieras cases (supra). 9. 9. The point upon which the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge was not even taken in the pleadings and the learned Additional District Judge has, in fact, set up a new case for the plaintiff which should not have been done as this type of controversy was never within the knowledge of the parties and the simple question raised by the parties was regarding the genuineness and valid execution of the will. No other point was argued before me. 10. In view of the above discussion, disagreeing with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge. I hereby accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree, dated 5th January, 1979, passed by the learned Additional District Judge and restore that of the trial court, and as a result thereof dismiss the plaintiffs suit. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed- -