Judgment P.S. Rana, J. Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Una dated 23.3.2010 announced in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2007/08 titled Shakuntla Devi and others vs. Kamla Devi and Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2007 titled Kamla Devi vs. Shakuntla Devi and others. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that suit for declaration was filed by deceased Jaswant Rai that suit land was owned by Gurcharan son of Pohlo resident of Mohalla Damdama Una town Tehsil and District Una except the land measuring 22637 being 99/1080 share out of Khasra No. 1304. It is pleaded that deceased Gurcharan executed a registered Will dated 29.6.1990 in sound disposing state of mind and bequeathed his entire property in the names of his four sons including one Malkiat Singh who died without leaving any Class-I heir and his share was succeeded by the parties equally. It is pleaded that Gurcharan Singh died on dated 3.5.1991. It is further pleaded that recital in the Will that tenancy right would be inherited by defendant No.1 is contrary to law. It is further pleaded that tenancy right could not be Willed away. It is further pleaded that mutation Nos. 314 dated 10.1.1992 and 1371 dated 30.4.1994 sanctioned behind deceased plaintiff are null and void and inoperative and have no binding effect upon the right of the deceased plaintiff. It is further pleaded that on the basis of illegal mutation in favour of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1 threatened deceased plaintiff to take exclusive possession and also threatened to change the nature of suit land. It is also pleaded that time and again defendant No. 1 was requested to admit the claim of deceased plaintiff but defendant No.1 refused to do so. Relief for declaration sought to the effect that parties are joint owners of suit land on the basis of Will dated 29.6.1990 and declaration also sought that mutation No. 314 dated 10.1.1992 and mutation No. 1371 dated 30.4.1994 are illegal, null and void and are inoperative. Consequential relief of injunction also sought. In the alternative relief for possession of suit land also sought. 3. Consequential relief of injunction also sought. In the alternative relief for possession of suit land also sought. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of contesting defendants No.1 pleaded therein that suit of the plaintiff is barred by time and further pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action. It is pleaded that plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit. It is pleaded that suit land was possessed by Gurcharan Singh father of the parties as tenant. It is further pleaded that deceased Gurcharan Singh had executed a Will dated 29.6.1990 and bequeathed his entire property in favour of his four sons. It is further pleaded that deceased Gurcharan Singh bequeathed his tenanted property exclusively in favour of defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession of tenanted property as mentioned in the Will. It is further pleaded that mutation had been sanctioned strictly as per contents of Will executed by deceased Gurcharan Singh. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Plaintiff filed replication and reiterated his pleadings pleaded in the plaint. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 28.2.2003:- 1. Whether plaintiff and defendants are joint owners in possession on the basis of Will dated 29.6.1990, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the mutation No. 314 dated 10.1.1990 and mutation No. 1371 dated 30.4.1994 are wrong, illegal, null and void, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by his own acts and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Relief. 5. Findings of learned trial Court qua issue Nos. 1 and 2 are partly in yes and partly in no and qua issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are in negative. Learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by deceased plaintiff through his legal representatives. Learned trial Court restrained defendant from ousting plaintiffs or asserting exclusive ownership over suit land till the suit land is regularly partitioned. During the pendency of civil suit plaintiff Jaswant Rai died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 6. Learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by deceased plaintiff through his legal representatives. Learned trial Court restrained defendant from ousting plaintiffs or asserting exclusive ownership over suit land till the suit land is regularly partitioned. During the pendency of civil suit plaintiff Jaswant Rai died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 6. Feeling aggrieved against judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others filed Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2007/08 titled Shakuntla Devi and others vs. Kamla Devi and Smt. Kamla widow of Bhagat Ram filed Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2007 titled Kamla Devi vs. Shakuntla Devi and others. Learned first Appellate Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2007/08 filed by plaintiffs titled Shakuntla Devi and others vs. Kamla Devi and learned first Appellate Court accepted the Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2007 filed by defendant titled Kamla Devi vs. Shakuntla Devi and others. 7. Feeling aggrieved by judgments and decrees passed by learned first Appellate Court Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others filed present Regular Second Appeal and Hon’ble High Court admitted present appeal on the following substantial questions of law on dated 25.8.2010:- 1. Whether Gurcharan became owner automatically on 3.10.1974 under the Act and Rules qua the suit property? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court interpreted the Will regarding bequeathing property is legally correct? 3. If Gurcharan becomes owner of tenancy land on 3.10.1975, the land becomes part of his property, then to whom the land would vest as per Will? 8. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record carefully. Oral evidence adduced by the parties 9. PW1 Babita has tendered her affidavit in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that suit land is situated in Khasra No 2382/1296 is measuring 3 Kanals 04 marlas, Khasra number 1304 is measuring 05 Kanals 06 Marlas and Khasra No. 471/1 is measuring 04 Kanals 14 Marlas. There is recital in affidavit that suit land is about 13 Kanals. There is further recital in affidavit that Khasra No. 2382/1296 and 471/1 were in the ownership of her grandfather Gurcharan Singh and on Khasra No. 1304 there was possession of her grandfather Gurcharan Singh as tenant. There is recital in affidavit that suit land is about 13 Kanals. There is further recital in affidavit that Khasra No. 2382/1296 and 471/1 were in the ownership of her grandfather Gurcharan Singh and on Khasra No. 1304 there was possession of her grandfather Gurcharan Singh as tenant. There is further recital in affidavit that her grandfather in sound disposing state of mind had executed a Will dated 29.6.1990 in favour of his four sons. There is further recital in affidavit that one son Malkiat Singh died issueless and his share was also devolved upon his other brothers in equal share. There is further recital in affidavit that her grandfather died on dated 3.5.1991. There is further recital in affidavit that recital in Will that Khasra No. 1304 would be inherited by defendant Bhagat Ram is contrary to law. There is further recital in affidavit that her grandfather was owner in possession of the entire suit property. There is further recital in affidavit that as per law the Will of tenanted land could not be executed. There is further recital in affidavit that vide mutation No. 314 and mutation No. 1371 defendant No. 1 Bhagat Ram became owner of tenanted land in illegal manner and contrary to Will. There is further recital in affidavit that Bhagat Ram had threatened that he would alienate the tenanted property comprised in Khasra No. 1304 and would also change the nature of suit property. There is further recital in affidavit that parties are joint owners in possession of suit property. She has denied suggestion that tenanted land was inherited by Bhagat Ram exclusively as per Will. She has denied suggestion that Bhagat Ram is in exclusive possession of tenanted land. 9.1. DW1 Vijay Puri Ex-Municipal Commissioner Una has also filed his affidavit in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that Gurcharan Singh has executed a Will dated 29.6.1990 in sound disposing state of mind in favour of his four sons. There is further recital in affidavit that as per Will non-occupancy land was to be inherited by Bhagat Ram. There is further recital in affidavit that contents of Will were read over and explained to the testator and after admitting the contents of Will as correct testator had put his thumb impression and thereafter Will was produced before Sub Registrar. There is further recital in affidavit that as per Will non-occupancy land was to be inherited by Bhagat Ram. There is further recital in affidavit that contents of Will were read over and explained to the testator and after admitting the contents of Will as correct testator had put his thumb impression and thereafter Will was produced before Sub Registrar. He is marginal witness of Will and has stated that Will is Ext.DA. He has denied suggestion that recital in Will that non-occupancy land would exclusively go to Bhagat Ram was written at the instance of Bhagat Ram and in collusion with Bhagat Ram and other marginal witnesses. He has denied suggestion that testator did not mention about non-occupancy land when he executed the Will. He has denied suggestion that Will of non-occupancy land could not be executed. 9.2 DW2 Harish Kumar has stated that he is deed writer. He has brought the summoned record and on dated 29.6.1990 Gurcharan testator had executed a Will and entries were recorded in Register at Sr. No. 283. He has stated that marginal witnesses of Will were Vijay Puri and Shamsher Singh. He has stated that testator had marked his thumb impression on the Will and has also put his thumb impression on the register. He has stated that original Will is Ext.DA which is written and signed by him. He has stated that contents of Will were read over to testator and after admitting the contents of Will as correct testator has marked his thumb impression. He has denied suggestion that Will could not be executed qua tenanted land. He has denied suggestion that he has entered the recital of tenanted land in collusion with Bhagat Ram and Shamsher Singh. He has denied suggestion that testator did not execute any Will qua tenanted land. 9.3 DW3 Bhagat Ram has also filed his affidavit in examination in chief. He has stated that his father had executed a Will dated 29.6.1990 and further stated that non-occupancy land was given by testator exclusively to him. He has stated that he is in exclusive possession of non-occupancy land. 9.3 DW3 Bhagat Ram has also filed his affidavit in examination in chief. He has stated that his father had executed a Will dated 29.6.1990 and further stated that non-occupancy land was given by testator exclusively to him. He has stated that he is in exclusive possession of non-occupancy land. He has stated that he used to cultivate the land along with testator during his life time and his other two brothers used to work in Punjab and Jaswant used to perform the business of sweets at Jalandhar and he used to reside along with his family members at Jalandhar. He has stated that after death of his father mutation was sanctioned as per Will. He has stated that testator was non-occupancy tenant and he had given the entire non-occupancy land to him by way of Will. He has denied suggestion that after the death of his father all three brothers had occupied the suit property. He has denied suggestion that inheritance of tenanted land was incorporated in the Will in collusion with deed writer and marginal witnesses. Findings upon Substantial Question of law No.1 framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 10. The dispute inter se the parties is qua recital in the Will Ext.DA that tenancy land of testator would exclusively vest on Bhagat Ram after death of testator placed on record. It is proved on record that Gurcharan Singh had four sons namely (1) Jaswant Rai (2) Bhagat Ram, (3) Malkiat Singh and (4) Roop Lal. It is also proved on record that one son of Gurcharan Singh namely Malkiat Singh died issueless and his share was devolved upon (1) Jaswant Rai, (2) Bhagat Ram (3) Roop Lal in equal share. It is also proved on record that Jaswant Rai also died and his legal representatives namely (1) Smt. Shakuntla Devi widow, (2) Nisha, (3) Neena, (4) Babita, (5) Anita, (6) Vinod Kumari, (7) Reeta Kumar, (8) Ramesh Kumar were impleaded as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff namely Jaswant Rai. It is also proved on record that Bhagat Ram also died and Kamla Devi was impleaded as legal representative of Bhagat Ram being widow. Court has carefully perused the contents of Will Ext.DA placed on record. It is also proved on record that Bhagat Ram also died and Kamla Devi was impleaded as legal representative of Bhagat Ram being widow. Court has carefully perused the contents of Will Ext.DA placed on record. There is specific recital in Will that after the death of testator Gurcharan Singh the immovable property in the ownership of testator Gurcharan Singh situated in Village Una, Lal Singhi, Tehsil Una would be devolved upon his sons namely (1) Jaswant Rai, (2) Bhagat Ram, (3) Malkiat Singh (4) Roop Lal in equal share. There is further recital in Will Ext.DA placed on record that non-occupancy tenancy rights of Gurcharan Singh would be devolved upon his one son namely Bhagat Ram after death of testator. It is proved on record that Gurcharan Singh died on dated 3.5.1991. It is well settled law that Will operates after the death of testator and Courts are under legal obligation to respect the wishes of testator. It is held that intention of testator at the time of execution of Will was that immovable property which was in ownership of testator at the time of execution of Will in the record of right would go to his four sons in equal share and it is held that intention of testator at the time of execution of Will was that property which was under tenancy at the time of execution of Will in the record of right would exclusively inherited by Bhagat Ram. It is well settled law that records of right are prepared as per H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 by public servant in discharge of their official duties. It is also well settled law that conferment of proprietary rights upon non-occupancy tenant was automatic after the enforcement of Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. (See 1994(4) SLJ 2682 titled Sant Ram vs. Jash Ram)It is well settled law that as per Section 104(8) proprietary rights did not vest automatically qua property owned by minor or unmarried woman or if married divorced or separated from husband or widow. There is bar on vestment of proprietary right automatically as per Section 104(8) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act qua immovable property owned by (1) minor, (2) unmarried woman or (3) if married divorced or (4) separated from husband or widow. There is bar on vestment of proprietary right automatically as per Section 104(8) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act qua immovable property owned by (1) minor, (2) unmarried woman or (3) if married divorced or (4) separated from husband or widow. In present case it is proved on record that (1) Smt. Krishna Devi was widow of Guru Dutt, (2) Smt. Ram Pyari was widow of Nanak Chand, (3) Smt. Juli Devi was widow of Nanak Chand, (4) Smt. Sheela Devi was widow of Baldev (5) Smt. Dropadi Devi was also widow of Tulsi qua Khasra No. 1304 as per jamabandi for the year 1986-87 Ext.P8 placed on record and it is also proved on record that proprietary rights did not confer upon testator at the time of execution of Will qua shares of widows as per Section 104(8) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It is held that intention of testator was that tenancy rights qua his non-occupancy land would go to his one son namely Bhagat Ram after his death. Hence it is held that Gurcharan did not become owner of the suit property comprised in Khasra No. 1304 automatically on dated 3.10.1975 qua share of widows. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that Will qua tenancy land could not be executed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 2326 titled Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and others vs. Tehmtan Irani and others that Will qua tenancy land could be executed by the tenant unless execution of Will is specifically barred under the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Court has carefully perused the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972.There is no bar for execution of Will by tenant qua tenancy land under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. As per Section 113 there is only bar wherein the ownership rights conferred. Court is of the opinion that where ownership rights are not conferred upon the tenant then there is no bar on execution of Will qua tenancy rights. It is held that Section 113 bars the transfer of ownership rights and did not bar the transfer of tenancy rights. It is well settled that there is wide difference between (1) ownership rights and (2) tenancy rights. It is held that Section 113 bars the transfer of ownership rights and did not bar the transfer of tenancy rights. It is well settled that there is wide difference between (1) ownership rights and (2) tenancy rights. Hence it is held that there is no bar under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act to transfer the tenancy rights by way of Will by statutory tenant. Hence substantial question of law No. 1 framed by Hon’ble High Court is decided accordingly. Findings upon Substantial question of law No.2 framed by Hon’ble High Court. 12. It is well settled law that Courts are under legal obligation to comply with the wishes of testator. It is also well settled law that contents of the Will should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation. It is held that intention of testator was that land which was under tenancy qua Khasra No. 1304 on dated 29.6.1990 at the time of execution of Will would be devolved upon Bhagat Ram exclusively after the death of testator. Hence it is held that interpretation of learned first Appellate Court regarding bequeathing the property is legally correct. Hence substantial question of law No. 2 framed by Hon’ble High Court is answered accordingly. Findings upon Substantial question of law No.3 framed by Hon’ble High Court:- 13. It is held that Shri Gurcharan Singh acquired proprietary rights under Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act qua the property owned by owners automatically except the immovable property owned by widows. It is held that Gurcharan Singh did not acquire proprietary rights on dated 3.10.1975 automatically qua share of widows in view of bar under Section 104(8) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It is held that at the time of execution of Will testator did not acquire proprietary rights qua share of widows. Hence it is held that at the time of execution of Will intention of testator was that immovable property which was in tenancy of testator at the time of execution of Will on dated 29.6.1990 would exclusively go to Bhagat Ram. It is also proved that Bhagat Ram used to reside with his father namely Gurcharan Singh during his life time and other sons of Gurcharan Singh were residing at Jalandhar. It is also proved that Bhagat Ram used to reside with his father namely Gurcharan Singh during his life time and other sons of Gurcharan Singh were residing at Jalandhar. It is held that intention of testator was to give his immovable property to Bhagat Ram which was in his tenancy at the time of execution of Will in lieu of services rendered by Bhagat Ram. Hence it is held that as per contents of Will dated 29.6.1990 property of deceased Gurcharan Singh which was under non-occupancy tenancy qua Khasra No. 1304 as per jamabandi for the year 1986-87 recorded in the record of rights would exclusively go to Bhagat Ram on the basis of testamentary document i.e. Will dated 29.6.1990. 14. In view of above stated facts appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court are affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Record of learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court be sent back forthwith. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.