AMIT RAWAL, J. - (1.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby the relief claiming share of total holding of her husband Sadhu Singh, has been declined, but has been held to be entitled to half share in respect of the residential house.
(2.) Mr. Aakash Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that Sadhu Singh along with his brothers and cosharer were having ?th share in the land measuring 153 kanals 18 marals. He died on 16.08.2002 having left behind widow and mother. The area of ?th share came to 38 kanals 9.5 marlas. It is, in this backdrop of the matter, the appellant-plaintiff along with her mother-in-law was entitled to 19 kanals 5 marlas and half share in respect of the house. The lower Appellate Court has granted the relief in respect of house, but declined on the ground that the registered Will dated 12.08.2002 propounded by the defendant(s), who are none-else, but the brothers of Sadhu Singh, the limited interest/estate was given to the appellant-plaintiff.
(3.) He further submits that the findings aforementioned are totally erroneous, much less, alien to the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (dead) by LRs" AIR 1977 SC 1944 as the contents of the Will would reveal that the appellant-plaintiff would become absolute owner as per Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, thus, there is a gross illegality and perversity and urges this Court for setting aside the judgment and decree under challenge.;