RSA No. 2191 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2191 of 2009 Date of Decision: 07-07-2009 Rajesh Kumar Gulati ......Appellant Versus Ashok Gulati .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from a portion of the property owned by Ram Saran Gulati and inherited by the plaintiff, was decreed. The plaintiff is son of Ram Saram Gulati, who has allegedly executed a Will dated 6.3.2003, registered on 7.3.2003 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is grand son of Ram Sharan Gulati and son of Janak Raj Gulati and in possession of the part of the property owned by his grandfather. To prove the Will propounded by the plaintiff, one of the attesting witnesses was examined as PW1-Ashok Goel, whereas the Scribe RSA No. 2191 of 2009 (2) Paramjit Singh was examined as PW2. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW-4. The learned trial Court returned a finding on issue No. 1 in respect of Will against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was not aware of the execution of the Will; that one of the attesting witnesses Krishna Devi, does not have good credentials; that the Will has been signed and thumb marked and no person would ever sign and thumb mark the same document and that the recital in the Will that Tilak Raj Gulati has died issueless, is incorrect. However, the learned first Appellate Court, discussed the entire evidence threadbare and returned a finding that the Will dated 6.3.2003 is proved to be executed. The first Appellate Court has taken into consideration that the father of the defendant was given his share during his lifetime as he was residing in Faridabad. On the basis of statement of Ashok and Paramjit Singh, it is found that the Will is proved to be executed in the presence of the witnesses, who have signed and seen testator having signed in their presence. Even the entry in respect of execution of the Will was made in the register of the deed writer on 6.3.2003, Exhibit P.2. The first Appellate Court, considered that one of the sons of Tilak Raj Gulati was not alive at that point of time. May be, while writing the Will, the Scribe committed mistake in describing that Tilak Raj Gulati has died issueless, but the said mistake is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the attesting witnesses and the scribe in respect of the execution of the Will. The learned first Appellate Court has examined, the entire evidence to return a finding of fact that the Will dated 6.3.2003 was executed in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the RSA No. 2191 of 2009 (3) said fact, the status of defendant is that of a licencee and the plaintiff has been rightly found entitled to the possession thereof. The findings recorded are sought to be disputed by way of re-appreciation of evidence. The reasoning given by the trial Court to discard the Will, to say the least is perverse based upon surmises and conjectures alone. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded or that the findings recorded give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 07-07-2009 ds