CM No.492-C of 2008 RSA No.143 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.492-C of 2008 RSA No.143 of 2008 Decided on : 28.10.2009 Hardial Singh ... Appellant versus Pal Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff claiming declaration that they had inherited the property of their Bua (paternal aunt) by way of Will to the exclusion of her children. Both the Courts below have been found against the appellant primarily on the ground that even though the lady Bhajan Kaur was about 58-60 years old, she was described as being 32 years old in the Will. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the 'Will' ExP1 dt. 17.02.1994 which is a CM No.492-C of 2008 RSA No.143 of 2008 -2- registered document carries presumption of due execution and authenticity could be discarded on flimsy grounds? ii)Whether the 'Will' in question is proved according to the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act? iii)Whether according to Section 60 of Registration Act, 1908 the registering authority officer did not see presence of real executant, competency to act and identified to his satisfaction before registering the 'Will' ExP1? iv)Whether minor discrepancies in statements of witnesses can invalidate the registered 'Will' especially when were examined after 11 years of the execution of the Will? v)Whether the registered 'Will' ExP1 could be discarded by the courts below merely on suspicious circumstances while ignoring the material evidence and real intention of the Executant? vi)Whether the reasons given in the 'Will' ExP1 are sufficient to render the will a valid and genuine document? vii)Whether the findings by both the courts below are perverse and contrary to evidence on record? It would be seen that all the questions are pure CM No.492-C of 2008 RSA No.143 of 2008 -3- questions of fact. In my opinion, the finding that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances cannot be said either based on no evidence or on such mis-reading of evidence which renders them perverse so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. Held October 28, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE