RSA No.818 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.818 of 2005 Date of Decision: 05.08.2009 Raghbir Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Karminder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. R. S. Riar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H. R. Nohria, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 9. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents holding that no will was executed by the Mukand Singh in favour of the appellant and the co- defendant respondent No.10. The following questions have been proposed by the learned counsel:- “A. Whether ingredients of Section 63 of Succession Act being complete. Will being duly registered needs to be upheld even if there are small variations in the statements? B. Whether small variations in the statements of the RSA No.818 of 2005 -2- witnesses is bound to be there when the evidence is recorded after nearly 16 years of the execution of the Will and therefore, should have been ignored? C. Whether share in the hands of the son from his father would be his self acquired property and not ancestral and therefore, can be willed by the son? D. Whether the plaintiff-defendant having preferred suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed have omitted/relinquished their claim for any other relief as per the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 coupled with the principles of resjudicata? E. Whether the suit was bad being hopelessly time barred? F. Whether not even a single inch of the land in possession of the plaintiff suit for declaration and permanent injunction would be barred under the law without consequential relief of possession and without affixing court fee thereupon?” Questions nos.'A' and 'B' are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the courts below holding that Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In my opinion, it can not be said that such findings have been arrived at either on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to render them perverse. Once questions No.'A' and 'B' are held against the appellant questions No.'C', 'D', 'E' and 'F' do not arise. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. RSA No.818 of 2005 -3- No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 05, 2009 JUDGE ashish