JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs who are the appellants in the instant appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court have filed the instant regular second appeal. 2. The parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants. 3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendant No. 5 (Smt. Asha Devi) are joint owners in possession in equal shares to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land and gift deed dated 20.10.1997 by defendant No.1 (Roshan Lal, predecessor-in-interest of defendants) in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 (Shami Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar) is ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 5 and the entry in revenue record to this effect vide mutation No. 52 dated 19.9.98 is null and void. 4. It is pleaded that similarly the Will dated 15.9.1999 set up by the defendants in collusion with proforma defendant No. 5 is a result of fraud and is forged and fabricated document and the same is ineffective on the rights of plaintiffs. 5. It is further pleaded that parties to suit are Hindu by religion and plaintiff No. 1 is the wife, plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 are the daughters and proforma defendant No. 5 is the mother of late Babu Ram, who died on 11.7.1986. Babu Ram was having interest in Mitakshra co-parcenary property and same is unobstructed property. Roshan Lal was KARTA of Hindu joint family. After the death of Babu Ram, he was succeeded by his wife Kehri Devi, daughters Anjana, Seema Devi and Pawna Kumari and mother Asha Devi. On 20.10.1997, defendant No. 1 executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No. 3 in collusion with defendant No. 2 and on the basis of gift deed the defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the entire suit land. During the pendency of the suit, Roshan Lal died and defendants in collusion with proforma defendant No. 5 produced Will dated 15.9.1999 of Roshan Lal before the Revenue Officer and mutation was sanctioned on 21.2.2002 on the basis of Will of Roshan Lal. Roshan Lal had not executed any Will during his life time and he was not in proper senses and was bed ridden. Roshan Lal had not executed any Will during his life time and he was not in proper senses and was bed ridden. The Will had been prepared by the defendants and proforma defendant on collusion with scribe and marginal witnesses and as such is a result of fraud and is ineffective upon the rights of plaintiffs and deserves to be declared so. Even if the Will is proved the same is null and void as Roshan Lal was not competent to execute any Will as the suit land is Hindu co-parcernary property and prayer for decree of the suit was sought. 6. In written statement filed on behalf of defendants No. 2, 3 and 4, it is pleaded that suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no cause of action. It is further pleaded that suit is not properly valued. It is again pleaded that Babu Ram had separated from the father about 16 years back and took money to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- when separated and went to Amritsar. It is further pleaded that parties are not governed by Mitakshra Law but are governed by Kangra Custom prevailing in the area vide which the gift deed for the services can be made by owner even of ancestral property. It is contended that Roshan Lal was competent to execute the gift deed for the services rendered by defendant No. 2 and his family members. It is further contended that plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the gift deed and mutation has rightly been sanctioned in accordance with law. Will is not the result of fraud and forged document, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of proforma defendant No. 5 Smt. Asha Devi and LRs of Roshan Lal 1(a) to 1(c) wherein it is pleaded that Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and suit is not maintainable in the present form and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit and the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct and the suit is not within limitation. It is contended that suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action. It is further contended that Babu Ram was not a member of joint Hindu family and was not having any interest therein. It is contended that suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action. It is further contended that Babu Ram was not a member of joint Hindu family and was not having any interest therein. It is further pleaded that property in dispute is not a co-parcenary property and Babu Ram had separated from his parents about 18 years back and had taken money to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Roshan Lal at the time of separation and left the village for Amritsar for his livelihood. It is pleaded that parties are not governed by Mitakshara Law but are governed by Kangra custom and Will and gift can be executed even qua ancestral property under Kangra Custom. It is further pleaded that Babu Ram or his family members did not serve Roshan Lal during his life time and Roshan Lal was served by defendants and prayer for dismissal of the suit sought. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 14.9.2001 and additional issues were also framed on 26.9.2003 : 1.Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 are joint owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land as alleged? OPP 2. Whether gift deed dated 20.10.1997 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5, as alleged ? OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3A. Whether the Will dated 15.9.1999 executed by late Sh. Roshan Lal is a result of fraud and mis-representation etc., as alleged ? OPP 3B. Whether late Sh. Roshan Lal executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant No. 5 as alleged? If so, its effect? OPD 3C. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action? OPP 3D. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit? OPD 3E. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD 3F. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 3G. Whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to sue? OPP 3H. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3I. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action? OPD 4. Relief. 9. OPD 3F. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 3G. Whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to sue? OPP 3H. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3I. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action? OPD 4. Relief. 9. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and plaintiff No. 1 was held to be co-owner in joint possession to the extent of 1/5th share + 1/25th share. The share of defendant No. 5 is also determined as 1/5th +1/25th. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were held to be co-owners in joint possession to the extent of 1/25th share each of the suit land. Gift deed Ex. DW1/A dated 20.10.1997 was held to be null & void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 5. Mutation No. 52 dated 19.9.1998 on the basis of Gift deed Ext.DW/A was also held to be null and void. Will Ext. DW1/B dated 15.9.1999 is also held to be not a valid document and has no binding effect on the rights of the plaintiffs qua their shares or claim in the suit property after the death of their predecessor-in-interest Babu Ram in the month of July, 1986. Mutation dated 21.2.2002 on the basis of Will Ext. DW1/A was also held to be void and illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, defendants filed appeal before learned First Appellate Court. Learned First Appellate Court held that Babu Ram was legally entitled to inherit 1/6th share from the property of Roshan Lal being joint Hindu co-parcenary property and it was also held that share of deceased Babu Ram was to be divided equally among his widow, daughters and mother. Hence, gift deed Ext. DW1/A and Will Ext. DW1/B were declared null and void to the extent of share of Babu Ram only and the Will was not declared null and void to the extent of share of other coparceners because they did not challenge the gift deed Ext.DW1/A and Will Ext. DW1/B before any court of law at any point of time. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court were modified to this extent. 11. DW1/B before any court of law at any point of time. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court were modified to this extent. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, passed by learned First Appellate Court, the defendants/appellants have filed the instant Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on 8.10.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the judgment and decree as passed by learned 1st Appellate Court is sustainable in view of the fact that the same is not based upon the pleadings of the parties and misinterpretation of the evidence on record which has resulted into miscarriage of justice? 2. Whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act has retrospective operation as held by learned District Judge in view of the fact that suit was filed well before the amendment of Hindu Succession Act? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by 1st Appellate Court is sustainable in view of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act which has been amended in the year 2005 and had been made applicable w.e.f. 20.12.2004? 12. Since all the questions are intrinsically interlinked, interconnected and inter-related, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration. 13. It is vehemently argued by Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, appearing for the appellants that learned First Appellate Court erred in reducing the shares of plaintiffs in the land in dispute by misinterpreting Section 6 of the Hindu Successions Act, 1951, which in fact, came into effect on 20.12.2004 and was to apply prospectively. As a result of interpretation, learned First Appellate Court has wrongly granted share in property to the daughter of the deceased Roshan Lal KARTA of the Hindu joint family. It is further argued that learned First Appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that proviso given in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act has specifically made the provision that the amendment shall not effect or invalidate in disposition or alienation including in partition of testamentary disposition of property which has taken place before 20.12.2004. In view of this, the judgment rendered by learned First Appellate Court was prayed to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Raghu Nandan Chaudhary, Advocate would argue that the findings recorded by learned Courts below are pure findings of fact and therefore require no interference. 15. In view of this, the judgment rendered by learned First Appellate Court was prayed to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Raghu Nandan Chaudhary, Advocate would argue that the findings recorded by learned Courts below are pure findings of fact and therefore require no interference. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 16. The instant appeal was filed in the year 2009 when interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Successions Act was rather hazy and unclear, but now in view of judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vineeta Sharma versus Rakesh Sharma and others”, (2020) 9 SCC 1 , interpretation regarding Section 6 of Hindu Successions Act is settled for all times and the same has been culled out in paragraphs No. 137.1 to 137.5, which read as under: “137.1 The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. 137.2 The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. 137.3 Since the right in co-parcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. 137.4 The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of co-parcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. 137.5 In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.” 17. Noticeably, the provisions of Section 6 of Hindu Successions Act have in fact correctly been interpreted and thereafter applied by learned First Appellate Court, which has resulted in the reduction of share of the appellants, as is evident from paragraphs 21 , 22 and 24 of the judgment passed by learned First Appellate Court, which read as under: “21. The another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that suit property was not coparcenary ancestral property and Roshan Lal was not KARTA of the family and gift and Will cannot be held to be illegal documents and findings of the trial Court on issues No. 1, 2,3(a) to 3(i) are liable to be set aside, is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. DW­6 Asha Devi wife of Roshan Lal had admitted when she appeared in witness box that suit property was not self acquired of the deceased Roshan Lal and he had inherited the said property from Khemdi and Khemdi had inherited the same from Desu. Even DW­1 Pancham Singh has specifically stated that suit property was not self acquired property of Roshan Lal. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW­1 and DW­6. They have specifically stated in positive manner that suit property was not self acquired property of deceased and he had inherited the said property from Khemdi and Khemdi had inherited the said property from Desu. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of DW­1 and DW­6. They have specifically stated in positive manner that suit property was not self acquired property of deceased and he had inherited the said property from Khemdi and Khemdi had inherited the said property from Desu. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved as per section 58 of the Evidence Act. The appellants did not adduce any positive, cogent and reliable evidence on record in order to prove that suit property was self acquired property of deceased Roshan Lal. No documents are placed on record in order to prove that suit property was self acquired property of deceased Roshan Lal. Hence it is held that suit property was joint Hindu coparcenary property interse the parties. 22. The another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that Roshan Lal had three daughters, two sons and one widow and the share of Babu Ram, his deceased son was 1/6th and only that much share can be declared as null and void and entire gift deed and Will cannot be declared as null and void is partly accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The gift deed Ext. DW1/A and Will Ext. DW1/B have been challenged by LRs of deceased Babu Ram. Bau Ram legally entitled to 1/6th share in joint Hindu coparcenary property. I am also of the view that after the death of Babu Ram his legal heirs i.e. plaintiffs and mother of Babu Ram were legally entitled to inherit his 1/6th share equally from joint Hindu coparcenary property. Hence, it is held that plaintiffs alongwith mother of Babu Ram are legally entitled to 1/6th share from joint Hindu coparcenary property and gift deed and Will can be declared null and void qua 1/6th share only as per law because other legal heirs did not challenge the validity of gift deed Ext. DW1/A and Will Ext. DW1/B placed on record. Out of 1/6th share which was to be acquired by deceased Babu Ram from joint coparcenary property was to be devolved equally among his widow, daughters and mother as per law. 24. The another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that entire gift deed Ext. DW1/A and Will Ext. DW1/B placed on record. Out of 1/6th share which was to be acquired by deceased Babu Ram from joint coparcenary property was to be devolved equally among his widow, daughters and mother as per law. 24. The another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that entire gift deed Ext. DW1/A and Will Ext. DW1/B cannot be declared as null and void and these can be declared as null and void only to the extent of 1/6th share is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The gift deed and Will have been challenged by the LRs of Babu Ram only and other legal heirs did not challenge the Will and gift deed and it is well settled law that any documents can be declared null and void only qua the share of person(s) who had challenged the documents. In view of the fact that gift deed and Will Ext. DW1/A and Ext. DW1/B respectively are null and void to the extent of 1/6th share of Babu Ram in joint Hindu coparcenary property. See 1992 (1) Sim. L.C. 402, Kartari Devi & others vs. Tota Ram; 2001 (1) Sim. L.C. 211 Hoshiar Singh Vs. Raj Mahal and another; 1987 S.L.J. 727 (Punjab & Haryana) Chhaju Ram vs. apuria Ram and AIR 2001 H.P. 18 Om Parkash and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.” 18. Learned counsel for appellants has not been able to convince this Court with regard to there being any irregularity, muchless illegality committed by the learned first Appellate Court. As observed above, the findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court are in tune with the law, more especially the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. Although it is a different matter that by that time the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra) had not been delivered. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 19. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.