RSA Nos.1271 & 1272 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:25.07.2008. RSA No.1271 of 2008 Bachan Lal .. Appellant Versus Rachana Ram and another ... Respondents RSA No.1272 of 2008 Bachan Lal .. Appellant Versus Rachana Ram and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Ashok Bector, Advocate,for the appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Appellant Bachan Lal filed two civil suits. In Civil Suit No.377/96/98 he seeks declaration that the defendants are co-sharers in the residential houses situated in village Kesri, Tehsil and District Ambala. Civil Suit No.215 of 1997 was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing/digging, constructing or interferring in 1/3rd share of house detailed in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to 1/3rd share in the property of Haria Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendants. After the death of the deceased Haria Ram, the parties are entitled to the property left by the deceased in equal shares. He has also prayed for partition by metes RSA Nos.1271 & 1272 of 2008 -2- and bounds. Defendant No.1 in the written statement claimed that deceased Haria Ram, father of the parties during his life time bequeathed his property in favour of defendant No.1, who was residing with the deceased in the village and performing all social obligations towards him. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 were residing with their respective families and doing their business and profession at Patiala. Both the suits filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed separately by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.05.2007. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Haria Ram, father of the parties, had executed the Will Exhibit D3, which is legal and valid. The plaintiff preferred two separate appeals in the Court of learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Ambala, being Case Number No.58-CA of 2007 and Case Number 55-CA of 2007. The learned Lower Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2007dismissed both these appeals by a common judgment. Hence the present Regular Second Appeals. The learned Lower Appellate Court after examining the evidence on record, affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court regarding the validity of the Will and dismissed the appeals by a common judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length. It has been contended that the Will has not been proved by the defendant No.1 in the suit as only one out of two marginal witnesses have been examined. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel is that RSA Nos.1271 & 1272 of 2008 -3- the Will is fabricated as the deceased was not knowing Urdu. However, from the scanning of the impugned judgment, it appears that no evidence has been led to establish that the deceased testator had no knowledge of Urdu. Apart from that, the marginal witness and the scribe Roshan Lal has proved the due execution of the Will. There are no suspicious circumstances shrouding the Will. 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. 25.07.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO