IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2618 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011. Kuldeep Kaur. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Rachhpal Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 30.04.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which suit of present appellant-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2618 of 2010 Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of 1/5th share as she inherited the same from her father, Harnam Singh after his death. Dispute is regarding estate of Harnam Singh. There is no dispute that he left behind two sons and four daughters. Present appellant- plaintiff is one of the daughters and defendant-respondents are other sons and daughters of Harnam Singh. Harnam Singh executed a Will during his life time in favour of his two sons disinheriting married daughters including the present appellant-plaintiff. Mutation of inheritance after death of Harnam Singh was also sanctioned in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 on the basis of the said Will. The said mutation was challenged by the present appellant- plaintiff before Collector. However, a compromise was effected between the parties and she suffered statement before Collector admitting the factum of the Will. She and her other sisters i.e. respondents No.3 to 5 also filed affidavits in this regard before Collector, which are Ex.D2 to D5 admitting the Will to be genuine. On the basis of the statements suffered by present appellant-plaintiff and her other three sisters, the Collector dismissed the said appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Respondents-defendants also examined Balwant Singh, Notary Public who appeared as DW4 and approved the said affidavits, Ex.D2 to D5 on the basis of which order, Ex.DX was passed by the Collector. Moreover, in order to prove the execution of Will respondents-defendants also examined one of the attesting witnesses of Will, namely Tarlok Singh, Lambardar of the village besides Deed Writer who scribed the Will. Both the courts below after minutely examining the statements of witnesses came to the conclusion that execution of the Will has 2 RSA No.2618 of 2010 been duly proved and suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will has also been duly discussed by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that there are discrepancies in the depositions of Tarlok Singh, Lambardar and Deed Writer and that another attesting witness was not examined despite the fact that he was also present on that day. However, it has been rightly observed by courts below that merely on the ground that only one attesting witness has been examined, the Will cannot be discarded. It is further argued that Will was not registered. However, it has been rightly observed by the courts below that Will is not required to be registered and however, Will was got registered after the death of Harnam Singh. It has also been contended that finger print expert has given opinion that the Will does not contain thumb impression of Harnam Singh. However, this fact has been duly considered by both the courts below. Finger print expert has admitted in the cross-examination that majority of portion of specimen impression is faint and unfit for comparison. He also admitted that correct type pattern is not clear in specimen impression and the same is semi blurred and blurred. Hence, in view of these facts, the courts below have not placed any reliance upon the deposition of finger print expert. Moreover, his evidence is only of opinion in nature. There is other sufficient evidence adduced by respondents-defendants coupled with the admission of present appellant- plaintiff to prove execution of the Will. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by 3 RSA No.2618 of 2010 the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 5, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4