R. S. A. No. 3779 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3779 of 2008 Date of Decision : January 19, 2010 Vinod Kumar and another .... Appellants Vs. Ved Parkash and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiffs Vinod Kumar and his sister Pushpa Devi have filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 are brothers, whereas plaintiff no.2 and defendants no.3 to 6 are their sisters and defendant no.2 is their mother, Munshi Ram being their predecessor. The plaintiffs alleged that Munshi Ram was owner in possession of the suit property having received the same through a registered gift deed. On his death, plaintiffs and defendants inherited 1/8th share each in the suit property and are owners in possession accordingly. However, defendant no.1 obtained a decree dated 30.03.1996 against R. S. A. No. 3779 of 2008 2 Munshi Ram regarding the whole suit property by fraud and misrepresentation. Defendant no.1 had no pre-existing right in the suit property and therefore, there could be no family settlement between defendant no.1 and Munshi Ram, but the decree is based on alleged family settlement. Defendant no.1 contested the suit and pleaded that decree dated 30.03.1996 is valid and legal and plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The aforesaid decree was based on family settlement entered into between defendant no.1 and Munshi Ram. It was also pleaded that Munshi Ram had also executed legal and valid Will dated 16.02.1996 bequeathing the suit property in favour of defendant no.1. Defendants no.2 to 6 also controverted the claim of the plaintiffs and supported the version of defendant no.1. They also stated that Munshi Ram had executed Will dated 16.02.1996 in favour of defendant no.1 alone, who is, therefore, sole owner of the suit property. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2004, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding inter alia that decree dated 30.03.1996 in favour of defendant no.1 is not bad. Will dated 16.02.1996 executed by Munshi Ram in favour of defendant no.1 was also held proved. In first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008, while dismissing the appeal, held that decree dated 30.03.1996 is invalid for want of registration, but finding of trial court regarding Will in favour of defendant no.1 was upheld. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that no reason has been assigned in the Will for excluding plaintiffs and defendants no.2 to 6 from inheritance of the Will, which is not genuine. It R. S. A. No. 3779 of 2008 3 was also argued that no reference to the Will was made in the civil suit, in which decree dated 30.03.1996 was passed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that the Will is genuine and valid and is fully proved and plaintiff no.1 was excluded from inheritance because he was not having good relations with Munshi Ram. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The Will in question is fully proved because defendant no.1 examined scribe of the Will as well as Barham Dutt Sharma – one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. They have fully proved the said Will. Not only that, even defendants no.2, 4 and 5, i.e. wife and two daughters of the testator, also consented to the Will and signed the same. Defendant no.4 Shashi, who is daughter of the testator, has also appeared in the witness-box and testified regarding execution of the Will. The evidence led by the defendants to prove execution of the Will is cogent, reliable and sufficient. Moreover, it is not uncommon to disinherit married daughters in favour of sons. In addition to the aforesaid, defendants have led evidence that plaintiff no.1 was having bitter relations not only with his father i.e. Munshi Ram testator, but is also having bitter relations with his mother i.e. defendant no.2 and also with his sister Shashi – defendant no.4. Therefore, reason for excluding plaintiff no.1 from inheritance is not far to seek. There is also another significant circumstance for upholding the Will. Defendants no.2 to 6, who are widow and four daughters of the testator, have supported the version of defendant no.1 regarding due execution of the Will by Munshi Ram testator. Defendant no.2 is mother of the plaintiffs, whereas defendants no.3 to 6 are sisters of the plaintiffs. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no perversity or illegality in the concurrent finding by both the courts below that due execution of legal and valid Will by Munshi Ram in favour of defendant no.1 is fully proved. This is a finding of fact, which cannot be challenged in R. S. A. No. 3779 of 2008 4 second appeal. Even otherwise, the said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. As a necessary upshot of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. January 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE