RSA No. 765 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 765 of 2006 Date of Decision: 21.8.2009 Gurcharan Singh ......Appellant Versus Smt. Bachan Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for declaration claiming the estate of Rabel Singh son of Lal Singh, on the basis of Will dated 11.1.1974 , was dismissed. Rabel Singh had four daughters, who are the defendants in the present suit. The plaintiffs are the sons of the brother of Rabel Singh. Both the Courts have found that the Will dated 11.1.1974 is not proved to be executed and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made any effort to dispute the findings recorded by the Courts below that such Will is not proved to be executed and the same is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the RSA No. 765 of 2006 (2) appellants is that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in the previous proceedings, inter-se the parties, that Rabel Singh has executed the Will dated 11.1.1974, therefore, as against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration in respect of their title. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. A Will is required to be proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the execution of the said Will is not proved. Such finding is a finding of fact. Therefore, on the basis of admission of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the previous proceedings, execution of the Will cannot be deemed to be proved as the execution of the Will can only be proved in the manner indicated above. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21-08-2009 ds