JUDGMENT : This is defendant second appeal who has lost from both the Courts below since the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and the appeal filed by the defendant has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that the suit property belonged to one Gulabchand who died intestate in the year 1966 leaving behind his wife Rajrani (died on 22-12-89). Gulabchand and Rajrani were having two children, daughter Smt. Shanti Jain who died somewhere in 1955 or 1956 and son Kanchhedilal Jain, the defendant, Smt. Shanti Jain died leaving behind three sons namely Naveen, Sudhir and Niranjan. Needless to say, Niranjan is the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that Rajrani has bequeathed the suit property admeasuring which is a part of a shop by executing a Will on 24-12-1987. A map has also been drawn in the Will (Exhibit P/1) showing that out of the total area of the shop she is bequeathing in favour of plaintiff mentioning the dimensions and four boundaries etc. Since the defendants are interfering in the possession of the suit property of plaintiff Niranjan Kumar, a suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by him on the basis of the said Will. It has also been pleaded that after the death of Rajrani, the plaintiff is possessing the suit property and is also owner thereof under the said Will. 4. The plaint averments were refuted by defendant/respondent by filing written statement and a specific plea has been raised in para 7 that the property was of Gulabchand and after the death of Gulabchand, it devolved in defendants Kanchhedilal and Rajrani. Thus, Smt. Rajrani was not capable to bequeath a specific portion of undivided joint property to the plaintiff. 5. The learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence came to hold that Rajrani executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and since the Will has been proved in the evidence of the attesting witnesses, the plaintiff Niranjan became the absolute owner of the suit property which was bequeathed to him by Rajrani through Will Exhibit P/1 on 24-12-1989. The learned trial Court also found that plaintiff is in possession of the suit shop and eventually passed a decree of injunction also. 6. The defendant filed First Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 7. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the appellants. 8. This Court on 23-4-03 has admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Could Mst. Rajrani wd/o Gulab Chand having undivided interest bequeath the specific property by Will Ex. P/1 (ii) Whether the suit property marked ABCD in plaint map formed the subject-matter of Will (iii) Whether exclusion of material documents including Ex. D/4 certificate of registration dated 27-3-79 has vitiated the finding that the plaintiff is the owner of suit shop? 9. The contention of Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned senior counsel is that the property of Gulabchand Jain was never partitioned and after the death of Gulabchand Jain, it devolved in defendant, Rajrani, plaintiff and other sons of Smt. Shanti who died during the life time of Gulabchand Jain. Hence for an undivided interest in the joint property. Smt. Rajrani was not competent and capable of bequeathing a specific portion to the plaintiff under the Will Ex. P/1. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the analogy of Mulla Hindu Law, para 261 which is in respect of rights of purchaser of co-parcener interest. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramdayal v. Manklal, 1973 MPLJ 650 . By adopting said analogy and by putting emphasis on Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 it has been put forth by learned senior counsel that Rajrani was not having any domain to bequeath a specific portion of undivided property left by her husband Gulabchand mentioning the boundaries, dimensions etc. and therefore the Will, Ex. P/1 is not workable. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on a single Bench decision of this Court in case of Amar Nath and others v. Nathuram and others, 2004 (2) MPLJ 217 . 10. and therefore the Will, Ex. P/1 is not workable. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on a single Bench decision of this Court in case of Amar Nath and others v. Nathuram and others, 2004 (2) MPLJ 217 . 10. On the other hand, Shri Tiwari learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that Rajrani was having share in the joint property and if she had bequeathed the Will in favour of her daughter son Niranjan (plaintiff) and the Will Ex. P/1 was found to be proved by the learned two Courts below, hence the learned two Courts below did not err in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and therefore it has been prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. Regarding Substantial Question of Law No. 1. 12. The pedigree is not in dispute and this is also not in dispue that Gulabchand Jain was the owner of the property in question. Undisputedly, Rajrani was the wife of Gulabchand Jain and they were having one daughter Smt. Shanti Jain and a son Kanchhedilal (Defendant). This is also an admitted position that before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, Smt. Shanti Jain died in between 1955-1956 leaving behind three sons namely Naveen, Sudhir and Niranjan (plaintiff). Admittedly, the property in question was never partitioned before the Will Exhibit P/1 was executed and it appears that still it is joint, and if that would be the position, according to me. Rajrani was not capable and competent to execute the Will of the property of Gulabchand Jain (which became a joint property of the parties after his death) by bequeathing a specific portion shown in the map which is embodied in the Will Exhibit P/1 itself. Hence, the said Will is not workable. No doubt, she could have bequeathed her share in the undivided property left by Gulabchand. But in any case it was beyond her competency to bequeath a specific portion in favour of plaintiff through the Will. Hence, the said Will is not workable. No doubt, she could have bequeathed her share in the undivided property left by Gulabchand. But in any case it was beyond her competency to bequeath a specific portion in favour of plaintiff through the Will. Thus, the substantial question of law No. 1 is answered in favour of defendant/appellant and it is hereby held that Rajrani although she was having undivided share in the property left by Gulabchand Jain, but, she was not capable of bequeathing a specific portion in favour of plaintiff by executing the Will Ex. P/1 and therefore, the said Will is not workable in view of Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Regarding Substantial Question of Law Nos. 2 and 3. 13. Since the fate of appeal and the suit is decided by answering substantial Question of Law No. 1 this Court is not answering these two substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3. 14. It has also been apprised to the Court that parties have already filed a suit for partition. 15. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below decreeing the suit is hereby set aside and the suit of plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.