IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.673 of 2009 Date of decision : July 16, 2010 Pakhar Singh …Petitioner. Versus Hazara Singh and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms Devyani Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he alongwith defendants-respondents had inherited the estate of Lachhman, according to the Rules of Succession and that Will of said Lachhman, propounded by the defendants, was invalid. He pleaded that the property was ancestral and coparcenery property in the hands of said Lachhman and, therefore, he could not have made the bequest. 2. Suit was contested by the defendants-respondents. Trial Court dismissed the suit. Petitioner has now filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge. Before the District Judge, an application was filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint. He wanted to raise the plea that Lachhman was not legally competent to make a bequest, in excess of his share in the coparcenery property. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Appellate Court has dismissed the application, on the ground, amongst others, that facts, necessary for urging this point, which is a point of law only, have already been pleaded in the plaint and, therefore, amendment is not required. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has already been pleaded in the original plaint that the suit property was coparcenery property and Lachhman was the Karta of the coparcenery and, therefore, he was not competent to make the Will, besides pleading that the Will was not genuine and had never been executed by Lachhman. 6. Now, when it has already been pleaded that Lachhman was Karta of the coparcenary and, therefore, request is unlawful, the plaintiff can argue, without amending the plaint, that Lachhman, being only a coparcener, could not have bequeathed more than his share in the coparcenery property. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 2nd August, 2010. Record, which was requisitioned, be returned. Pending application stands disposed of, having become infructuous. July 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J