RSA No.1510 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1510 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.7.2009. Sukhbir Singh ....Appellant Versus Balbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. **** C.M. Nos. 8142-43-C of 2009 C.Ms. are allowed as prayed for. RSA No. 1510 of 2009 Defendant No.6 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Court below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs claiming estate of their father Arjan Singh by way of natural succession was decreed. Arjan Singh son of Karam Singh was exclusive owner of land measuring 13 kanals 2 marlas. He died on 24.10.1993 leaving behind plaintiffs Balbir Singh, Thakur Singh and defendants No.1 Sukhdev Singh as his sons and defendant No.2 as his daughter. Defendants No. 3 to 5 are sons and daughters of his pre-deceased daughter Gurdial Kaur. Defendant No.6 is son of Sukhdev Singh, defendant No.1. Defendant No.6 has propounded Will dated 13.8.1992 to claim estate of the deceased Arjan Singh exclusively but both the Courts have returned concurrent findings of fact that the aforesaid Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and consequently decreed the suit. The Will propounded by the appellant recite that the property is bequeathed in favour of appellant on account of services rendered but it has been found that the appellant was 2 ½ months old on the date of execution of RSA No.1510 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Will as he was born on 30.5.1992. Still further the aforesaid Will recite that earlier Arjan Singh has executed a registered Will dated 28.8.1986 but the said Will was not produced. It was thus inferred that if earlier Arjan Singh could execute a registered Will earlier than it was not explained as to why he has not got his later Will registered. The First Appellate Court has also considered that deed writer Gauri Shanker has not been examined who is the relevant witness in support of the averments that Will was at the instance of Arjan Singh. Still further it has been considered that the Will saw the light after six years of the death of the deceased. Such facts were taken into consideration to return a finding that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the attesting witnesses of the Will has been examined and on the basis of testimony of witnesses, the Will is proved to be executed and therefore, the finding recorded by learned Court below is not tenable. I do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The execution of Will and the Will being surrounded by suspicious circumstances are two different aspects. Even if the execution of Will is proved, the same can still be found to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Both the Courts have delineated circumstances to return a finding that Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Such factors cannot be said to be irrelevant or not germane to the controversy. In fact the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant is to seek the reversal of finding by re-appreciation of evidence. Such re-appreciation of evidence in challenging the findings of facts by learned Court below is not permissible in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 24.7.2009 JUDGE Reema