IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 267 of 1998. Reserved on : 10.4.2009. Decided on: 21.4.2009. __________________________________________________ Smt. Rupa and others. … Appellants. Versus Baldev and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 8 : Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For Respondent No.9 : Nemo. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 3-N/13 of 1996 dated 1.4.1998. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class (1), Paonta Sahib that Will dated 1.10.1992 Ext. DW-2/A executed by deceased Parsa in favour of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for convenience sake) be declared null and void. A declaratory decree was also sought by the plaintiffs against the defendants to the effect that they along with proforma defendant had become owners of the property in dispute being legal heirs of deceased Parsa. The case was contested by the defendants. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 23.11.1995. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur. He dismissed the appeal on 1.4.1998. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Will Ext. DW-2/A dated 1.10.1992 is shrouded by suspicious circumstances more particularly, when no property has given to the natural heirs nor any reason has been mentioned in the Will why testator is disinheriting the natural heirs and preferring others? 2. Whether learned First Appellate Court has mis- construed, misinterpreted and mis-applied the evidence on record with respect to execution of Will Ext. DW-2/A dated 1.10.1992? Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are not sustainable. He further argued that the Will has not been duly executed. He finally contended that the daughters could not be ignored by the testator. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. Both the substantial questions of law are being taken up together for adjudication to avoid repetition and for convenience. The Will Ext. DW-2/A is dated 1.10.1992. DW-1 has brought on record the documents Ext. DA to Ext. DG. DW-2 is Shri A.K. Sareen, Advocate. He deposed on oath that the Will Ext. DW- 2/A was executed in his presence. It was typed by Shri Rakesh Kumar at the instance of the testator. It was read over to him. He admitted it to be correct and put his thumb impression in presence of Shri Bachan Singh (DW-4). DW-4 has also supported the execution of the Will. The Will was registered before the Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib. Shri Arun Grover, Advocate appeared as DW-3. He identified the testator before the Sub Registrar. The relations between the plaintiffs and testator were not cordial. There was prolonged litigation between the plaintiffs and the testator. The plaintiff No.1 has filed a civil suit No. 66/1 of 1989 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Paonta Sahib against the testator. It was instituted on 26.4.1989. The plaintiff No.2 also filed a civil suit No. 72/1 of 1993 against the testator. It is in these circumstances that the testator has executed Will dated 1.10.1992 in favour of the defendants. It is due to the cases instituted by the plaintiffs against the testator that the daughters have been dis-inherited by him. He was being looked-after by the defendants. Both the Courts below have rightly up-held the validity of the Will in question. The findings recorded by both the learned Courts below are based on the facts and the same need not be interfered with. 4 Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 21, 2009. (cr)