JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Defendant No.1 is the appellant, who aggrieved by the decree of the learned trial court, whereby suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed, as affirmed by the learned first appellate court, has filed the instant regular second appeal. 2. The parties shall be referred to as the “plaintiffs” “defendant” and “proforma defendants”. 3. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the land comprised in Khata No. 115/110 min, Khatauni Nos. 196, 197/196, 198/197, 199/198, 200/199, 201/200, Khasra Nos. 708, 1988/949, 950, 1758/1063, 1121, 1154, 1158, 1160, 1224, Kita-9 measuring 6-4-4 bighas and 1760/1101, 1314, 1761/1101, 1759/1063, 1081, 1313, Kita-6 measuring 5-8-6 bighas Kita15, measuring 11-13-0 bighas, situated at Mauza Pangna, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, HP was recorded in the ownership and possession of Bholla Dutt and proforma defendants No. 2 to 15 as per jamabandi for the year 1995- 96. The land comprised in Khewat No. 330 min/570 min, Khasra No. 707 measuring 10-11-10 bighas, situated at Mohal Pangna was Abadi Deh in which deceased Bholla Dutt, father of the plaintiffs, was owner in possession of the half share. Bholla Dutt died on 1.10.1998 and the plaintiffs laid claim to the suit land on the ground that the same was ancestral, coparcenary and joint Hindu property of the plaintiffs and Bholla Dutt. However, Bholla Dutt prior to his death executed a will No.143 daetd 7.8.1998 of the movable and immovable property in favour of defendant No.1, which was assailed on the ground of it having been executed by undue influence and with mala fide intention to deprive the plaintiffs of their right by way of inheritance. Accordingly, a declaration was sought qua the will being wrong, illegal, null and void and based on the will, mutation No. 808 dated 22.1.1999 was also assailed on the same ground and apart from decree of declaration, relief of possession was also sought. 4. The suit was resisted and contested by defendant No. 1 by filing written statement, wherein a number of preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was averred that none out of four sons of Bholla Dutt was looking after him for the last 33 years and it was defendant No.1, who was looking after him. Therefore, Bholla Dutt out of love and affection had executed a legal and valid will in his favour. 5. On merits, it was averred that none out of four sons of Bholla Dutt was looking after him for the last 33 years and it was defendant No.1, who was looking after him. Therefore, Bholla Dutt out of love and affection had executed a legal and valid will in his favour. 5. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement, wherein averments made in the written statement were denied and the averments made in the plaint were reaffirmed and re-asserted. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 29.9.1999 framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit land is ancestral, coparcenary and joint Hindu family if so its effect vis-a-vis of alleged will dated 7.8.1998? OPP 2. Whether the defendant No.1 got executed will No. 143 dated 7.8.1998 by exercising undue influence, hence will is void and illegal? OPP 3. If issues No. 1 & 2 are proved in affirmative whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Relief. 7. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2000 partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by rendering following issues-wise findings:- Issue No.1: Yes, Will qua 4/5th share of plaintiffs is invalid. Issue No.2: No. Issue No.3: Yes, as per findings. Issue No.4: No. Issue No.5: No. Issue No.6: No. Relief The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed as per operative portion of the judgment. 8. As regards the plaintiffs, the decree passed by the learned trial court has attained finality as the same was never assailed by them, however, defendant No.1 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, filed an appeal before the learned first appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.1.2003, constraining defendant No.1 to file the instant appeal. 9. Even though the appeal came to be admitted on 6.1.2006, but no specific substantial questions of law were framed. It is only on 2.11.2017 that this Court formally admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. 9. Even though the appeal came to be admitted on 6.1.2006, but no specific substantial questions of law were framed. It is only on 2.11.2017 that this Court formally admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether both the learned courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary and joint Hindu family property? 2. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both learned courts below are a result of misreading and mis-appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record? 3. Whether property inherited by a woman loses its character of being ancestral property? 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NO. 1 TO 3: 11. Since all these substantial questions of law are intrinsically interlinked and interconnected, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and are being answered by common reasoning. 12. At the outset, it needs to be observed that the findings regarding execution of the will in favour of defendant No.1 have attained finality and the sole reason for not passing a decree in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of the aforesaid will was that the suit property in the hands of Bholla Dutt was ancestral and, therefore, he at best could only will away his share in the ancestral property. 13. Now, therefore, the moot question is whether a person can dispose of by way of testamentary disposition only his share or can dispose of entire ancestral property under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act. 14. This question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kartari Devi and others versus Tota Ram, (1992) 1 ShimLC 402 and thereafter the ratio laid down therein was upheld and approved by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Tek Chand versus Mool Raj,1997 2 HinduLR 306 and both these judgments, in turn, have been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sham Lal alias Kuldip versus Sanjeev Kumar and others, (2009) 12 SCC 454 wherein it was observed as under:- “26. There is no denying that the property in the hands of the deceased Balak Ram was ancestral since admittedly he had inherited the same form his father. There is no denying that the property in the hands of the deceased Balak Ram was ancestral since admittedly he had inherited the same form his father. In so far as the question whether under the custom governing the parties, a Will could be executed in respect of ancestral property is concerned, the same is no more res integra. 27. A learned Single Judge of the High Court in Kartari Devi and Ors. v. Tota Ram, (1992) 1 ShimLC 402 has held that in view of section 30 read with section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 a male Hindu governed by Mitakshara system is not debarred from making a Will in respect of coparcenary/ancestral property. The above view of the learned Single Judge was upheld and approved by a Division Bench of the High Court in Tek Chand v. Mool Raj,1997 2 HinduLR 306. (Hindu LR p.310, para 14). In view of the above ratio, the learned District Judge has erred in upholding the validity of the Will Ex. DW 1-A only to the extent of the interest of the deceased in the property. Such findings are wrong and liable to be set aside. 28. There is yet another significant aspect of the case. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the mutation of inheritance bearing No.1313 sanctioned on 20.2.1988 was wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights and that the land property in dispute was jointly owned and possessed by him and defendant nos.3 to 6 in equal shares. Further that the Will dated 4.12.1978 was null and void and inoperative beyond the competency of the deceased and also being the result of fraud, misrepresentation etc. Such suit was filed on 21.5.1991.” 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would argue that since the plaintiffs were coparceners in the suit property, therefore, they have right by birth in the same. In support of such contention, strong reliance is placed on the following judgments:- Ms. Vaishali Satish Ganorkar & anr. vs. Satish Keshorao Ganorkar & ors., AIR (2012) Bombay 101; Prakash and ors. vs. Phulavati and ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36 ; and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & anr. vs. Amar & ors.,2018 3 HimLR 1709 (SC) 16. In support of such contention, strong reliance is placed on the following judgments:- Ms. Vaishali Satish Ganorkar & anr. vs. Satish Keshorao Ganorkar & ors., AIR (2012) Bombay 101; Prakash and ors. vs. Phulavati and ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36 ; and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & anr. vs. Amar & ors.,2018 3 HimLR 1709 (SC) 16. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the plaintiffs and find that in all the judgments, as referred to above, question was regarding the applicability of the amendment carried out in Hindu Succession Act vide Amended Act, 2005, whereby the daughters have been alleged to be coparceners like the male counter parts having a right to succeed to the coparcenary property by virtue of their birth alone. 17. It is in that background that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act would apply on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005 and the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It was further held that the amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. However, I am at complete loss to understand as to how the ratio of the aforesaid judgments is of any assistance to the plaintiffs save and except, drawing a conclusion that the property inherited by a woman after coming into force the Amended Act, 2005 would be as ancestral property. 18. As observed above, moot question in the instant case is whether the entire ancestral property could have been willed away by Bholla Dutt and the complete answer is found in para 27 of the judgment in Sham Lal’s case (supra) as quoted and uderlined above. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, even though no exception can be taken to the findings recorded concurrently by both the learned courts below to the effect that the property in the hands of Bholla Dutt was ancestral, however, further findings that Bholla Dutt could not have executed a will beyond his share in favour of defendant No.1 in the coparcenary property to be ancestral property are liable to be set aside in view of the law expounded in Sham Lal’s case (supra). Accordingly, substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 are answered. 20. Accordingly, substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 are answered. 20. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below to the extent they hold that Bholla Dutt could not have executed a will beyond his share in favour of defendant No.1 in the coparcenary property to be ancestral property are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is accordingly dismissed, in toto, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.