ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14.3.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Kurwai District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2018, by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 rule 3 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of title as well as for permanent injunction pleading inter alia that the original owner Pranchand had three daughters namely Laxmi Bai, Basanti Bai and Savitri Bai. He died without leaving any "Will". One of the daughter of Pranchand namely Laxmi Bai got her name mutated in the Nagar Panchayat record on the basis of some illegal "Will" purportedly executed by Pranchand. It was pleaded that the defendants No. 2 to 6 are claiming that Laxmi Bai had executed a "Will" in their favour. However, the "Will" is illegal and without any authority because Laxmi Bai is not the sole owner and in possession of the property in dispute mentioned in Schedule - A. It was further pleaded that on the basis of another "Will" executed by Laxmi Bai, defendant No. 1 is also claiming herself to be a solitary owner of the house shown in the Schedule - B but in fact Laxmi Bai had no right to execute the "Will". It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/petitioner is not interested in partition but she wants to keep the property as joint property. Thus, it was pleaded that property shown in Schedule - A and B be declared as joint and undivided property. It be also declared that the petitioner / plaintiff has also 1/3rd share in the property mentioned in Schedule - A and B. It be also declared that defendants No. 1 and 2 be restrained from alienating the property in dispute or demolishing or raising any construction in the property in dispute and the "Will" purportedly executed by Laxmi Bai in favour of respondents No. 1 to 6 be declared as null and void. 3. The defendants No. 1 to 6 filed their written statement. It was pleaded that the property in question was partitioned by Pranchand amongst three daughters. Laxmi Bai has sold the house situated near Government Boy School to Sheela Bai. 3. The defendants No. 1 to 6 filed their written statement. It was pleaded that the property in question was partitioned by Pranchand amongst three daughters. Laxmi Bai has sold the house situated near Government Boy School to Sheela Bai. Sheela Bai had allowed the son of petitioner to reside in a part of said house on an assurance that he would leave the premises after constructing his house. As the son of the petitioner did not vacate the house, therefore, Laxmi Bai had filed a suit for eviction and a decree of eviction has been passed against the son of the plaintiff, therefore, the present suit has been filed. Appeal against the decree passed against son of the plaintiff is already pending before the High Court. The allegation of execution of illegal "Will" in favour of Laxmi Bai was specifically admitted by him. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed the following issues : ^^1& D;k okn i= ds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V ^^v^^ ,oa ^^c^^ esa of.kZr edku oknh dh iSrÑ ,oa vfoHkkftr laifÙk gS \ 2& D;k mijksDr fookfnr edkuksa esa oknh dk 1@3 gd fgLlk gS \ 3& D;k fookfnr edkuksa esa oknh dk izfroknhx.k ds lkFk la;qDr LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; gS \ 4& D;k izkupan ,oa y{ehckbZ ds olh;r ,oa oS;ukek voS/k gksus ls 'kwU; fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ 5& D;k fookfnr edkuksa ds laca/k esa izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh ds gd fgLls esa voS/k :i ls gLr{ksi dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gS\ 6& D;k oknh }kjk okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu dj mfpr U;k; 'kqYd vnk fd;k gS \ 7& D;k oknh }kjk fofgr le;kof/k esa okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS \ 8& lgk;rk ,oa O;; \^^ 6. It is clear that apart from the other issues, an issue with regard to the "Will" has also been framed. 7. The petitioner filed an application under Order 18 rule 3 of CPC on the ground that the petitioner is ready and willing to lead evidence in respect of issues No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 but so far as the issue of "Will" is concerned, since the burden is on the propounder of the "Will", therefore, the petitioner wants to reserve her right to lead evidence on the said issue and the defendants be directed to lead evidence on issue No. 4. 8. 8. The defendants No. 1 to 6 filed their reply to this application and pleaded that the burden to prove issues No. 1 to 3 is on the plaintiff but the plaintiff instead of examining her witnesses is trying to linger on the suit. The petitioner would also get an opportunity to cross-examine the defendants and, accordingly, it was prayed that not only the application be rejected but the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence be also closed. 9. The Trial Court by order dated 14.3.2019 rejected the application on the ground that since the suit has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the burden to disprove the "Will" is on her. 10. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it is well established principle of law that the propounder of the "Will" is required to prove the "Will" beyond reasonable doubt by clarifying the suspicious circumstances which are attached to a "Will". It is further submitted that the Trial Court has committed a material illegality by holding that since the petitioner has challenged the "Will", therefore, the burden is on her. 11. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in other proceedings, the son of the petitioner had admitted the execution of "Will", therefore, the petitioner is not correct in saying that the execution of "Will" in favour of Laxmi Bai by Pranchand is in dispute. 12. It appears that Laxmi Bai had filed a suit for recovery of possession against Harinarayan, son of the petitioner. In the said suit, Harinarayan was examined and cross-examined. Ultimately by judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 6- A/2003, a decree of possession was filed against the son of the petitioner, against which according to the respondent, an appeal is pending before this Court. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that a decree passed against Harinarayan would operate res judicata against the petitioner. 13. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not a party in the previous suit. First appeal is also pending. Thus, it is clear that the suit filed by Laxmi Bai against Harinarayan would not operate as res judicata. 14. 13. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not a party in the previous suit. First appeal is also pending. Thus, it is clear that the suit filed by Laxmi Bai against Harinarayan would not operate as res judicata. 14. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that any evidence given by her son in a previous suit, in which the petitioner is not a party, cannot be read against the petitioner. 15. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that in a suit filed by Laxmi Bai against son of the petitioner, he had made certain admissions in her evidence, which clearly indicate that the "Will" executed by Pranchand in favour of Laxmi Bai was admitted by the petitioner and under these situations, respondents are not liable to lead evidence on the issue No. 4. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 17. Order 18 rule 3 of CPC provides that when there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party then the party beginning may at his option, either produce his evidence on all those issues or reserve its right by way of answer to the evidence produced by other party. 18. In the present case, the defendants are claiming that since Laxmi Bai was the owner of the entire property by virtue of the "Will" executed by Pranchand, therefore, she had full right to either execute the "Will" or sale deed in favour of the defendants. The "Will" is in exception to the general law of succession. The burden is on the propounder to prove the "Will" beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, merely because the petitioner has challenged the "Will" executed in favour of Laxmi Bai would not absolved the defendants for proving the "Will". 19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court committed material mistake by holding that since the suit has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, entire burden in proving the issue of "Will" is on the plaintiff. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.3.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Kurwai District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 29- A/2018 is hereby set aside. Application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 rule 3 of CPC is hereby allowed. 20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.3.2019 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Kurwai District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 29- A/2018 is hereby set aside. Application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 rule 3 of CPC is hereby allowed. It is directed that by reserving the right to answer to the evidence produced by the defendants on issue No. 4, the petitioner shall begin her evidence. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.