N.U.BEG, J. - (1.)THIS is a plaintiffs special appeal arising out of a suit for declaration The property in dispute consists of two houses, Nos. 1 and 2 in this .judgment. The common ancestor of the parties was one Ram Prasad. The following genealogical table will be helpful for understanding the facts of the case;
(2.)THE plaintiffs case was that Shyam Manohar, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and Shyam Binod had died during the life-time of Ram Prashad, their father Shyam Binod had died issueless. Ram Prasad died in 1920. After his death Shyam Behari, the husband of the defendant Smt. Chando Devi and the plaintiffs became the owners of the house in dispute as members of a joint Hindu family. After the death of Shyam Behari in 1938 the plaintiffs became the owners of the property in dispute to the extent of half and the defendant as the Hindu widow of Shyam Behari became entitled to a life estate in the remaining half. On the 24th March, 1916. Ram Prasad had executed a will bequeathing his entire property in favour of his son Shyam Behari with direction therein to the effect that the plaintiffs would have a right of residence in house No. 1 with the consent of Shyam Behari. The plaintiffs case was that the properly in dispute being ancestral property. Ram Prasad had no right to execute the will in respect of it and the will executed by him cannot, therefore. affect their rights. In the alternative, the plaintiffs case was that even if the will in question be considered to be a valid will they had a right of residence in house No. 1 under the said will.
The defendant contested the plaintiffs case. So far as house No. 1 is concerned, the defendants case was that Pandit Ram Prasad was the absolute owner of the property, and, after his death, the said house became the absolute property of his son Shyam Behari as the sole legatee of all his properties under the will dated the 24th March, 1916, and that the said house was given by Shyam Behari to the defendant by a gift deed dated the 10th March, 1980. So far as house No. 2 was concerned, it was built by Shyam Behari with his own money, and Shyam Behari had on the 29th August, 1938, executed a will bequeathing house No. 2 amongst other properties in favour of his wife Smt. Chando Devi, defendant. Shyam Behari died on the 3rd September, 1938. So far as the will of Shyam Behari dated the 29th August, 1938, is concerned, the plaintiffs case was that the said will was not genuine as the testator did not possess a sound disposing mind at the lime of its execution.

(3.)ON behalf of the plaintiffs it was conceded before the trial Court that there was no evidence to show that the properties in dispute were ancestral properties in the hands of Ram Prasad. The plaintiff also admitted the due execution of the will by Ram Prasad. As to the will dated the 29th August, 1936 set up by the defendant. The trial Court found that it was not executed by the testator while in a sound disposing mind and the said will was, therefore, not a genuine will. The trial Court further found that the plaintiffs had no right to reside in house No. 1 The trial Court, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the only declaration to which the plaintiffs were entitled was that the defendant held house No. 2 as a Hindu widow. It, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit to the extent that it granted a declaration that the defendant held house No. 2 for her life as a Hindu widow. For the rest it dismissed the plaintiffs suit.