IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 985 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 4, 2009 Banarsi Dass ....Appellant Versus Krishan Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Having lost before both the learned Courts below in his suit for declaration that he was entitled for all the movable and immovable property of his late father Munshi Ram on the basis of Will dated 21.1.1992, the plaintiff is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In his plaint, the plaintiff-appellant had averred that his father executed a registered Will dated 21.1.1992 in his favour out of love and affection, which fact was reasserted by him while filing replication. The Will Ex.PW4/1 was found to be not a registered Will but only attested by a Notary Public. The attestation by Notary Public did not amount to registration of the Will as only a Sub Registrar is empowered to register a document presented before him. Moreover, in his report Ex.DW5/1, DW5 Davinder Prasad, Handwriting Expert, had opined that the person, who put standard signatures of Munshi Ram on mark A1 to A5 did not put the disputed signatures on mark Q1 and Q2 on the Will Ex.PW4/1 and the same were imitated and forged signatures. The said Handwriting Expert gave nine different reasons in R.S.A. No. 985 of 2009 -2- respect of his report Ex.DW5/1. The plea of the plaintiff that the Handwriting Expert had given the report on the asking of the defendants, who had examined him, cannot be accepted as the plaintiff had also an option of hiring the services of another Handwriting Expert and then to project his report for establishing that the Will in question had been signed by his father Munshi Ram and not by any one else. The learned Courts below have also held that the evidence given by PW2 Amar Singh, PW3 Gurnam Singh, PW4 R.D.Ahluwalia and PW6 Bhupinder Singh, Deed Writer, was not credible and convincing as there were material contradictions and infirmities in their testimonies. In view of the aforementioned facts, learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish the initial burden of proving the Will by leading cogent and convincing evidence. These concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial questions of law and not otherwise. These findings cannot be termed as perverse. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 4, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1