JUDGMENT : Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lays challenge to judgment dated 22.12.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.12-S/13 of 2018, affirming the order dated 15.01.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kasauli, District Solan, H.P in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Civil Suit No.24-1 of 2016, titled as Prem Chand vs. Krishan Lal and others, having been filed by the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants), whereby, suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant to declare that Will, dated 15.11.2010 registered in the Office Sub Registrar, Krishangarh, Solan vide No.26/2010 and mutation No.201 entered on the basis of aforesaid Will in favour of the defendants are null and void and for grant of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, came to be dismissed being barred by law. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., seeking therein declaration that Will dated 15.11.2010 executed by Smt. Julfi Devi, bequeathing her property in favour of the defendants is null and void and mutation No.201 entered on the basis of aforesaid Will in favour of the defendants, is also null and void. Besides above, plaintiff also prayed for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 3. Precisely, the case of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint was that no Will ever came to be executed by deceased Smt. Julfi Devi in favour of the defendants and as such, he is also entitled to equal share with defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 and 3 except defendant No.4 in the entire estate left by Smt. Julfi Devi and for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession. Plaintiff claimed that Smt. Julfi Devi widow of late Sh. Sheesh Ram was owner in possession of the land in village Lagog, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh, District Solan, H.P., and over that property she has also constructed house. Smt. Julfi Devi died issueless on 28.02.2016 and after her demise plaintiff, defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 and 3 being legal heirs have inherited her property as co-sharers. Sheesh Ram was owner in possession of the land in village Lagog, Sub Tehsil Krishangarh, District Solan, H.P., and over that property she has also constructed house. Smt. Julfi Devi died issueless on 28.02.2016 and after her demise plaintiff, defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 and 3 being legal heirs have inherited her property as co-sharers. Plaintiff claimed that Sh. Piru Ram was the common ancestor of the parties and as per the pedigree table of the parties, Smt. Julfi Devi with their predecessor, also became owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share in the abadi as detailed in the jamabandi after the death of her husband Sh. Sheesh Ram. Plaintiff claimed that Smt. Julfi Devi being old and weak was being looked after by him and at the time of her death, she was not in fit state of mind. Plaintiff claimed that after the death of Smt. Julfi Devi, he came to know that on the basis of Will dated 15.11.2010 mutation has been entered in the name of defendants showing them to be owner of the suit property qua the share of Smt. Julfi Devi. Plaintiff claimed that defendants in connivance with the revenue officials prepared false and fabricated Will in their favour and got the mutation sanctioned on the basis of said Will, which was never executed by Smt. Julfi Devi in their favour. Since, despite repeated requests defendants failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff, he is compelled to file the suit. 4. Aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiff came to be resisted on behalf of the defendants, who by way of filing written statement took specific objection with regard to maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, defendants though admitted that Smt. Julfi Devi died issueless, but denied that she had never executed any Will in favour of the defendants. Defendants in their written statement claimed that plaintiff has given wrong pedigree table in the plaint and during her life time Smt. Julfi Devi was looked after by the defendants and she in lieu of the services rendered by them executed valid registered Will dated 15.11.2020, bequeathing her entire property in favour of the defendants. Defendants in their written statement claimed that plaintiff has given wrong pedigree table in the plaint and during her life time Smt. Julfi Devi was looked after by the defendants and she in lieu of the services rendered by them executed valid registered Will dated 15.11.2020, bequeathing her entire property in favour of the defendants. Defendants while claiming themselves to be owner in possession of the suit property further claimed in written statement that there was no legal heir of Sheesh Ram husband of Smt. Julfi Devi, who was pre-deceased to Smt. Julfi Devi and plaintiff is not legal heir of Smt. Julfi Devi under Section 8 or under Section 15-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such, he has no locus standi to file the suit. 5. Aforesaid claim of the defendants came to be rebutted by the plaintiff by way of filing replication. 6. Before framing of issues on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, praying therein for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff does not fall in the category of succession as per his own pleadings and as such, plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 7. Plaintiff filed reply to the aforesaid application, wherein he reasserted his claim as was set up by him in the plaint. Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings adduced on record as well as averments contained in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, passed order dated 15.01.2018, accepting therein prayer made on behalf of the defendants for rejection of plaint. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, dated 15.01.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Solan, District Solan, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.12.2018. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to decree his suit after setting aside the impugned impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below. 9. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to decree his suit after setting aside the impugned impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below. 9. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by learned Courts below while passing impugned judgment dated 22.12.2018 and order dated 15.01.2018 respectively, this Court finds it difficult to agree with Mr. V.S.Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiff that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the provisions of law as well as pleadings adduced on record in its right perspective, especially Sections 15-B and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, rather this Court finds that since plaintiff miserably failed to prove his locus to file suit, no fault, if any, can be found with the order dated 15.01.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., accepting the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereby specific prayer came to be made for rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff has no locus to file the suit. 10. Pleadings available on record clearly reveals that one Sh. Piru Ram was the common ancestor of the parties and late Sh. Ratti Ram was one of the son of Sh. Piru Ram, brother of deceased Seesh Ram, deceased late Sh. Bhagat Ram and Sh. Mast Ram. It is also not in dispute that present plaintiff Prem Chand is the son of late Sh. Ratti Ram and as such, he is entitled to property, if any, inherited by his father Ratti Ram from Sh. Piru Ram. Late Sh. Sheesh Ram, who was brother of Ratti Ram was married to Smt. Julfi Devi. Since, Sheesh Ram died prior to Smt. Julfi Devi, property falling in his share came to the share of Smt. Julfi Devi, who admittedly died issueless. 11. Now question, which needs to be determined in the instant proceedings is whether property belonging to Smt. Julfi Devi, which she had inherited from her late husband Sheesh Ram can be claimed by the plaintiff being her legal heir or not, especially when other Class-1 legal heir namely, Mast Ram i.e. brother of late Sh. Seesh Ram is alive. 11. Now question, which needs to be determined in the instant proceedings is whether property belonging to Smt. Julfi Devi, which she had inherited from her late husband Sheesh Ram can be claimed by the plaintiff being her legal heir or not, especially when other Class-1 legal heir namely, Mast Ram i.e. brother of late Sh. Seesh Ram is alive. Smt. Julfi Devi before her death executed a Will, dated 15.11.2010, bequeathing her share of property in favour of the defendants, who happen to be sons of Sh. Bhagat Ram and Sh. Mast Ram i.e. brother of late Sh. Seesh Ram and Krishan Lal son of Sh. Bhagat Ram. 12. Though, in the case at hand plaintiff made an attempt to carve out a case that Will, dated 15.11.2010 was never executed by Smt. Julfi Devi and same is result of fraud and misrepresentation, but whether such contention of him, if accepted, shall have a bearing, if any, on the main case is another question, which needs to be determined in the instant case. Since plaintiff has not been able to prove his locus-standi to file suit, other pleas with regard to validity of Will allegedly executed by Smt. Julfi Devi in favour of the defendants is of no relevance as far as present lis is concerned. Since legal heirs of late husband of Smt. Julfi Devi are still alive, plaintiff otherwise in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, cannot claim any right in the property left behind by Smt. Julfi Devi. 13. At this stage it would be apt to take note of Sections 8,9, 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, herein below:- “8. General rules of succession in the case of males.— The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter— (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. 9. 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.—Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession. 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,— (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),— (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. 16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.—The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely :— Rule 1.— Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15,those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 2.— If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’s death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death. Rule 3.— The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.” 14. Bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of law, clearly reveals that property of a female Hindu, who dies intestates, in the absence of her son and daughter including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter and the husband, shall be devolved upon heirs of her husband, if the property is inherited by her from her husband or upon the heirs of her father- in- law in case she inherited property from her father-in-law. 15. It is admitted case of the parties that deceased Smt. Julfi Devi inherited the suit property from her husband and she died issueless and as such, as per provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act, her estate shall be succeeded by heirs of her husband even if she died intestate. Pedigree table of the parties clearly indicates that real brother of husband of deceased Smt. Julfi Devi namely, Mast Ram is still alive and as such, on the demise of Smt. Julfi Devi her brother-in-law Mast Ram being real brother of her husband Sheesh Ram is to succeed to the entire estate of Smt. Julfi Devi in terms of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants that even if it is presumed that deceased Smt. Julfi Devi had not executed any Will, the present plaintiff, who admittedly falls in entry-IV of Class-II legal heirs of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi, would not succeed any share. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants that even if it is presumed that deceased Smt. Julfi Devi had not executed any Will, the present plaintiff, who admittedly falls in entry-IV of Class-II legal heirs of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi, would not succeed any share. Section 16 Rule 1 which clearly provides manner in which the estate of female Hindu, who dies intestates is to be distributed among the heirs specified in sub section (1) of Section 15. Person detailed in entry I shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Section 9 of the Act, specifically provides the order of succession among heirs in the Schedule i.e. among the heir specified in the schedule, those in Class-I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs and those in the first entry in Class-II shall be preferred to those in second entry and similarly, those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry and so on in succession. The Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 specifies the list of Class-II heirs with entry-I to IX and as per this Schedule, real brother of the husband of Smt. Julfi Devi falls in entry-II, whereas present plaintiff being son of deceased brother of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi falls in entry IV of the Schedule (Class-II) and certainly as per provisions of Section 9, second entry in Class-II shall be preferred to those in the 3rd entry and so on in succession. 16. It is quite clear from the aforesaid provisions of law that plaintiff otherwise would not get any share even if Smt. Julfi Devi died intestate. Since real brother of Seesh Ram late husband of Smt. Julfi Devi is still alive, who otherwise being real brother of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi would have inherited the estate of Smt. Julfi Devi being legal heir falling in second entry in Class-II, plaintiff cannot claim any right over the property left by Smt. Julfi Devi. Since real brother of Seesh Ram late husband of Smt. Julfi Devi is still alive, who otherwise being real brother of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi would have inherited the estate of Smt. Julfi Devi being legal heir falling in second entry in Class-II, plaintiff cannot claim any right over the property left by Smt. Julfi Devi. Suppose prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff is accepted that Will, dated 15.11.2010 executed by Smt. Julfi Devi is not valid Will, even then plaintiff would not get anything for the reason that he falls in entry No. IV of Class –II legal heirs of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi, especially when real brother of husband of Smt. Julfi Devi i.e. Mast Ram is still alive. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as provisions contained in Hindu Succession Act, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below and as such, same are upheld. Moreover this Court finds that no question of law much less substantial is involved in the case for adjudication/determination of this case and as such, appeal under Section 100 CPC otherwise is not maintainable. Accordingly, the preset petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending applications, if any.