L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision : October 13, 2010 Dr. Rana Harinder, ...... Appellant. v. Gunita and another, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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 ? *** MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.1.2003 granting probate of the Will dated 19.12.1997 executed by deceased-Daljit Kaur wife of Harjinder Singh. The appellant is the daughter of the testatrix while respondent No.1 is one of the two daughters of the appellant. It is not disputed that the aforesaid Will was registered and that L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) ::2:: there was an unregistered codicil dated 17.5.1998. Before the learned Single Judge, the following issues were struck :- “ 1) Whether Daljit Kaur, Deceased executed a Will dated 19.12.1997 registered on 4.3.1998 ? OPP 2) Whether Daljit Kaur Deceased executed a codicil dated 17.5.1998 ? OPP 3) Whether Daljit Kaur deceased was not the owner of half share of H.No.689 Ist Floor Phase 3 SAS Nagar Mohali ? If so its effect. OPR 4) Relief.” At the very outset, it may be noticed that learned counsel for the respondent has stated that he does not press whatever rights his client may have obtained under the said codicil. As regards issue No.1, the learned Single Judge has considered the evidence of the attesting witnesses as well as the original Will and came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 has succeeded in proving that the testatrix had executed the Will voluntarily while sound in all her faculties. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to certain discrepancies in the statements of the attesting witnesses and to certain alleged suspicious features in the Will which, as per him, suggest that the respondent had obtained the signatures of the testatrix on a blank piece of paper. In our opinion, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the discrepancies are trivial cannot be termed to be a misreading of the evidence. Further, a perusal of the Will also corroborates the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no indication that the signatures of the L.P.A No. 275 of 2003 (O&M) ::3:: testatrix were obtained on a blank piece of paper. The presence of the testatrix at the time of registration is proved by the affixation of her photograph which had been attested. In the circumstances, we uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. Before parting with this judgment, we must add that learned counsel for the respondent has unequivocally undertaken on behalf of his client that she would not disturb the possession of the appellant over the house in Mohali (half of which belongs to the respondent as per the Will) during the life time of the appellant subject to the condition that the appellant does not in any manner alienate the same. We are informed that with regard to the ownership of half the share of the house in Mohali, civil proceedings are pending between the parties. We clarify that nothing contained in this judgment would affect those proceedings and they would be decided on their own merit. ( MUKUL MUDGAL ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk'