RSA No. 3761 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3761 of 2007 Date of Decision: September 25, 2009 Sukhdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Sukhwant Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 6 to 10. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents claiming inheritance of the share of Balwant Kaur by way of natural succession. The appellant propounded a will dated 27.6.94 which has been disbelieved by both the Courts below. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below being illegal, suffers from material irregularities are liable to be set aside? b) Whether while passing the impugned judgment and decree the learned courts below erred in law and fact and misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral as well RSA No. 3761 of 2007(O&M) 2 as documentary evidence available on the record as also the mandatory and settled proposition of law? c) Whether the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, which are based upon summary proceedings are binding upon the civil court for adjudication of civil rights between the parties? d) Whether in case of a Will if the witnesses do not support the execution of the Will before the civil court but had made statements on oath in other proceedings, the due execution of the Will can be proved by invoking the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? e) Whether simpliciter for declaration without claiming the relief of possession when the plaintiff is not in possession of the land is maintainable? Questions No.( a), (b) and (c) are pure questions of fact relating to the execution of the will. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. As far as question No. (d) is concerned there is no explanation to this principle of law. However, in view of the findings on questions No. (a), (b) and (c ) the decision on question of law would not help the appellant. As regards question No. (e) it is not disputed that parties are even otherwise co-sharers and in possession of the land. Thus, this question is also answered against the appellant. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 25, 2009 sunita