RSA No. 3427 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3427 of 2008 Date of Decision : 08.10.2009 Piara Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurdip Singh ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? Present: Mr. V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Parshant Vashisth, Advocate, for the appellant. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the estate of Kabal Singh on the basis of Will dated 24.8.2004, was dismissed. The estate of Kabal Singh is in dispute. He died on 7.10.2000 at the age of 98 years. The plaintiff relied upon Will dated 24.8.2000 to claim exclusive right over the property left by Kabal Singh, whereas the defendant is the other son of Kabal Singh. The plaintiff has examined PW-1 Tarsem Singh and PW-2 Sohan Singh, the attesting witnesses of the aforesaid Will and PW-3 RSA No. 3427 of 2008 2 Ashok Kumar, deed writer. Both the attesting witnesses are near relations of the plaintiff. Deceased Kabal Singh was real uncle of PW-1 Tarsem Singh i.e. husband of his father's real sister and husband of mother's sister of PW-2 Sohan Singh. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the execution of the Will itself is doubtful as thumb impression of Kabal Singh appears to have been used for preparation of the Will, which is evident from the writing of the Will as last three lines are with remarkably lower height of letters as compared to the height of letters of rest of the body of the Will. The last line has been written in such a manner that it assume the shape of an arch around the thumb impressions. It is for the same reason that scribe of the document had to affix his seal and to append his signatures in the space originally left as left margin of the document. The thumb impressions of the attesting witnesses are also not impressed along side the thumb impression of Kabal Singh and they had also to be affixed in the space originally left as left margin of the document. Both the Courts have also found that it s surprising to note that a person, who struck to his resolve of not bequeathing his property for a major period of 98 years of his life would decide to do so during the last few months of his life. It has been also found that Kabal Singh remained ill for the last one or two months and was hard of hearing as admitted by PW-1 Tarsem Singh. Both the witnesses are residing at a distance of about 20-30 kms. from the village of Kabal Singh. But it is not explained that how they came to the village of Kabal Singh at the same time for the purpose of execution of the Will. RSA No. 3427 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned first Appellate Court has misread the evidence, when it returned a finding that the original Will from the revenue record has not been summoned. Reference is made to the statements of the attesting witnesses and the scribe, wherein the witnesses have deposed that they have seen original Will from the summoned record of the mutation. Even if, the learned first Appellate Court has committed factual error to that extent, but it will not render other findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court as unsustainable. The manner of writing of the Will, health condition of Kabal Singh and the fact that Kabal Singh has not executed the Will during major part of his life show that the Will propounded by the appellant is not proved to be executed. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence alone. It could not be pointed that any evidence has been not taken into consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 08.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE