RSA No.3053 of 2004 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 24.07.2008. Bant Singh ... Appellant. Versus Meet Singh and others ... Respondents. Present: Mr.S.S. Rangi, ,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The present appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff who suffered adverse judgments and decrees against him in both the learned Courts below. The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming 1/4th share in the estate of Rachan Singh, his real brother. The plaintiff claimed that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 9 are the real brothers and sister of deceased Rachan Singh, who was unmarried and died issueless. It is further alleged that defendant Nos.3 to 8 have no concern with the suit property and have no right to alienate the same. Initially, the suit was filed claiming the right on the basis of the succession. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint and introduced the claim on the basis of a Will dated 23.04.1993 (Exhibit P-1). The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendant Nos.3 to 9 RSA No.3053 of 2004 -2- who filed a joint written statement, on the ground that the deceased during his life time had executed a registered Will dated 18.1.1988 bequeathing his entire estate in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 8. It is further pleaded that the deceased was residing with defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 8. On the basis of the aforesaid Will dated 18.1.1988, defendant Nos.3 to 8 have become absolute owner in possession of the suit property. Rachan Singh died on 24.06.1994. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants No.1,2 and 9 are joint owners and in possession of the suit property upto the extent of 1/4 share each qua the share of Rachan Singh s/o Thakar Singh? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the defendants No.3 to 8 are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of regd. Will dt.18-1-1988? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the property of deceased Rachan RSA No.3053 of 2004 -3- Singh on the basis of will dt.23-4-93? OPD 9. Whether the Will dated 18-1-1988 was revoked and cancelled by Rachan Singh deceased? OPP 10. Relief. The parties led their respective evidence. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the Will set up by the plaintiff is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The learned trial Court also came to the conclusion that the Will dated 18.1.1988 is the only genuine Will executed by deceased Rachan Singh during his life time which is duly registered and on the basis of the aforesaid Will, defendant Nos.3 to 8 have become owners of the suit property. Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2001. First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff in the Court of District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, also resulted in dismissal vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2004. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has vehemently argued that both the learned Courts below have wrongly ignored the last Will of the testator Rachan Singh. It is contended that in the last Will dated 23.04.1993, the deceased had specifically revoked the earlier Will dated 18.1.1988 and bequeathed the property in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is further contended that the deceased had given valid reasons in the subsequent Will for revoking the earlier Will. He has further contended that it is specifically averred in the Will that nephews were not serving him properly and he has revoked the earlier Will. Both the learned Courts below have refused to accept this explanation and RSA No.3053 of 2004 -4- contention. Both the parties have examined Handwriting Experts. The Handwriting Expert who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff has supported the plaintiff version, whereas the Handwriting Expert who appeared on behalf of the defendants has supported their version. Both the learned Courts below have narrated the suspicious circumstances to reject the subsequent Will. One of such circumstances is that when the present suit was filed, the claim of the plaintiff was based only on inheritance and the Will dated 23.4.1993 was set up by an amendment after more than two years of the filing of the suit in the year 1997, whereas the suit was instituted in October, 1994. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff has stated that he, at the time of the filing of the suit, was not aware of the Will. However, after 20/22 days he acquired the knowledge regarding subsequent Will executed by deceased Rachan Singh. No reasons have been given as to why the amendment was sought after more than two years from the date of knowledge of the subsequent Will. Both the learned Courts below have also referred to the fact that the parties were resident of Shamashpur, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib. However, the subsequent Will was allegedly executed at Chamkaur Sahib which is a remote place. There is no explanation to the effect that why Rachan Singh went on a different place to execute the Will whereas all facilities were available at the village where he was residing. It has also come on record that the deceased was residing with defendant Nos.3 to 8 all along during his life time. Even his last rites were also performed by his nephew Jodha and his ashes were also immersed at Kiratpur Sahib by the said nephew. In view of this evidence, the plea of the plaintiff to acquire the property on the basis of the Will dated 23.4.1993 has been rejected. All these questions fall within the realm of appreciation RSA No.3053 of 2004 -5- of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to Nimbo & Ors. Vs. Satyabir Singh, 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases, 224 (P&H); Surinder Paul & Anr. Vs. Sataya Devi & Ors., 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases, 667 (P&H); Gurdial Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kartar Kaur & Ors. , 1998 (2), Civil Court Cases, 421 (S.C.); Ram Piari Vs. Bhagwant and others, 1990, Civil Court Cases, 370 (S.C) and Bhajan Singh Vs. Jaswant Kaur, 1996 (1) Civil Court Cases, 628 (P&H), to contend that the testator must assign valid reasons to dis-inherit any heir. In the present case, admittedly, the heirs of deceased were brothers and sisters. The deceased was un-married and died issueless. Will of 18.1.1988 is in favour of the nephews i.e sons of defendant No.1 with whom the deceased was residing. In the Will dated 18.1.1988, it is mentioned that nephews are serving him. These are the valid reasons for excluding the brothers and sisters from inheritance. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 24.07.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO