IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 77 of 2000 Reserved on: 3.3.2011 Date of decision: 8.3.2011 Smt.Suresh Bala & anr. …. Appellants Versus Ramesh Chand & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellants: Sh.K.S.Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.Devyani Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No.84-N/13 of 1998 whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No.1. Paonta Sahib District 2 Sirmaur in Civil Suit No.143/1 of 1995 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Ratna had four sons and three daughters namely Gurmel Singh, Ramesh Chand, Fateh Chand and Dharam Pal, Smt.Kamla, Smt.Parkasho and Smt.Niko. Smt.Rajo Devi was the wife of Ratna. Gurmel Singh pre-deceased his father. After the death of Gumel Singh, his widow Barto left the house of her in-laws, went back to her matrimonial home and got re-married. The plaintiffs Suresh Bala and Achhro Devi are the daughters of Gurmel Singh. Ratna executed a Will, Ext.DW1/A on 13.2.1995 whereby he left his entire property in favour of his three surviving sons namely Ramesh Chand, Fateh Chand and Dharam Pal and his widow Rajo Devi. In the Will, there is a recital that Ratna had three daughters named above but since he had got them married and had given them dowry in accordance with his means, he did not want to leave anything more to them. The plaintiffs being the grand-daughters of Ratna filed the suit challenging the Will executed 3 by Ratna. The grounds of challenge taken were that no Will had been executed; that Ratna was not in a fit state to execute the Will and lastly that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances since the plaintiffs being the grand-daughters of Ratna had been excluded and the Will contained no reference to them. The Will, in question, is a registered Will. DW/1 Ramesh Chand is one of the defendants and he stated that their father executed the Will on 13.2.1995 in favour of the three surviving sons and the widow. DW/2 Niranjan Singh Saini is the document writer who scribed the Will. He deposed that the Will was written at the instance of Ratna. He identified his signatures on the Will. He further stated that the Will was written in the presence of the attesting witnesses Gurmukh Singh and Karam Chand. According to this witness, after the Will was written, he read it over to Ratna who admitted the same to be correct and then affixed his thumb impression on the Will. Thereafter, the attesting witnesses affixed 4 their signatures on the Will and then the Will was got registered before the Tehsildar. Karam Chand, DW/3 and Gurmukh Singh, DW/4 are the two attesting witnesses to the Will. All the witnesses deposed that at the relevant time, when the Will was executed, Ratna was in a fit mental condition. They clearly proved that the Will was executed in accordance with law and that after the scribe had written the Will, the same was read over and explained to Ratna who then put his thumb impression on the same and thereafter, both the attesting witnesses in the presence of Ratna and in the presence of each other affixed their signatures/thumb impressions on the Will. The Will was thereafter registered before the Tehsildar. It is thus obvious that the execution of the Will by Ratna has been proved in accordance with law. The contention of Sh.K.S.Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the fact that the grand-daughters of Ratna were dis-inherited is a suspicious circumstance is without merit. There is no need for a person to execute a Will if he wants to leave his property to all his legal heirs in accordance 5 with the law of inheritance. It is only when a departure from the natural rule of succession has to be made then it is necessary to execute a Will. We cannot loose sight of the fact that Gurmel Singh had died much earlier; his widow within a few months after the death of her husband had left the house of her in-laws and gone to her matrimonial home and re-married. It has been urged that one of the plaintiffs Smt.Suresh Bala continued to reside with Ratna. Even if that be correct, the mere fact that the names of the plaintiffs are not mentioned in the Will will not shroud the Will with any suspicious circumstance. Though the Regular Second Appeal was admitted on a number of substantial questions of law, I find that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. March 8, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge