R.S.A.No.770 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.770 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.7.2009 Sukhwinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Channa Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff No.2 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration claiming the estate of Karam Chand on the basis of Will dated 13.10.1995, was dismissed. The plaintiffs are the real nephews of Karam Chand, who died on 28.2.1999. The plaintiffs claimed the estate of Karam Chand on the basis of registered Will dated 13.10.1995. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the execution of the aforesaid Will. The original Will dated 13.10.1995 was not produced. Initially, the defendants filed an application for production of original Will. In reply, the stand of the plaintiffs was that the original Will will be produced at the time of evidence. During evidence, the plaintiffs moved an application for additional evidence, which was dismissed. Thereafter, an application for secondary evidence was filed, which was declined on 3.1.2002. It has been found that the plaintiffs have not given any reason R.S.A.No.770 of 2009 2 for non-production of original Will, when the suit was pending for a long time. In view of the said finding, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the appellant moved an application for additional evidence, which has been dismissed for the reason that there is no explanation of delay in leading evidence before the trial Court and that no case is made out for permission to lead additional evidence to prove the Will dated 13.10.1995. The plaintiffs have examined Niranjan Singh (PW-2) and Baldev Singh (PW-4), attesting witnesses of the Will. However, Niranjan Singh (PW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen the Will on that day and he did not know that how many copies of the Will have been prepared. He further deposed that he has not seen any Will in the Court, on which he had signed. Similar is the statement of Baldev Singh (PW-4). In view of the nature of evidence led by the plaintiffs, when even the original Will was not produced, the findings recorded by the Courts below, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The findings recorded by the Courts below do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 20.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE