Punjab Kaur Vs. Mohinder Singh

.....contest such alienation. it was, therefore, felt necessary to engraft certain restriction on degrees of collateral, eligible to contest an alienation, which under the custom itself was not limited. accordingly, the punjab custom (power to contest) act, 1920 (act no.2 of 1920) was enacted. the hindu succession act was extended to the state of punjab. act 2 of punjab act defined expression alienation to include any testamentary disposition of property and appointment of an heir was to include any adoption made or purporting to be made according to custom. a further provision was made by section 3 that hindu succession act was to apply only in respect of alienation of immovable property or appointment of heirs made by persons who in regard to such alienation or appointment were governed by custom. whereas section 4 declared that hindu succession act was not to affect any right to contest any alienation or appointment of an heir made before the date on which the succession act was to come into force. in other words, act, no.2 of 1920 was not to affect alienation or appointments of heir made before date on which it came into force. it also preserved the rights of any alienation or appointment of an heir made by a family. after section 7 was inserted in act of 1920 by the punjab amendment act of 1973 right of contest being contrary to custom had been totally effaced and taken away. therefore, no person has any right to contest any alienation of immovable property whether ancestral or non-ancestral on ground of being contrary to custom after january 23, 1973. in haryana, the situation as enunciated by act no.2 of 1920 continued to prevail in respect of alienation because no reforms parallel to punjab as brought by amendment act of 1973, had been enacted although right to pre-emption has been substantially abolished in haryana also. no steps even have been taken in that regard. therefore, situation in haryana have to be regarded as it existed under act no. 2 of..........and 3/4th share was given to the respondent. learned counsel for the appellant argued that the will cannot be said to have been proved and that even the circumstances show that will cannot be accepted. however, both the courts below have held in favour of the respondent regarding the will.3. learned counsel for the appellant argued that will cannot be accepted because it was only made one month prior to the death of a testator. he also argued that the earlier will was a registered will and, therefore, there was no need to execute an unregistered will. he further argued that as against the unregistered will, the registered will will prevail. learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the unregistered will relied upon by the courts below is not properly proved.4. it is not necessary that a will has to be registered. a person may get his will registered. however, the subsequent will, which is unregistered, will prevail upon the registered will if its execution is properly proved and there is an evidence to accept the execution of the will. the will being registered or not registered does not make any difference. moreover, even if the will is made one month prior to the death of the testator, it does not make any difference.5. here, in the present case, the respondent relied upon the unregistered will in which 3/4th share has been given to him and only 1/4th share has been given to the appellant. appellant did produce the registered will, which was in her possession, only when it was called upon by the court below. on questioning, learned counsel for the appellant stated that in the registered will also, the appellant is given 1/4th share. however, there is no mention about the remaining property. this goes to show that there was intention of the testator to give 1/4th share to the appellant and it may be because it is left out as to who shall succeed to the remaining 3/4th share, he might have executed the unregistered will subsequently.6. looking to the.....