/tlefendant No. 1 ^^£0K ^;^ PONDENT APPELLANT IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) S.A.No. t\5 Of 2011 •.^? ^- ^s^- ^t;^^'"i^ ^l•'"'•,^•S^^ '-'3,^st syegi efendantNo.2 :2) :: ^Vishnuraii)., S/o. Bishat Satnami, Village Danitola, Police Station Dongargaon, District D--" Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ^•^" Versus Awadh Ram, S/o. Chhotu Satnami, aged about 40 years, R/o. Village Danitola, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OFC.P.C .-fS . ff'/-s* '^ 'vh^SQh § ';<iis?ii3-ig § fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra S.ANo. 113^011 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Vishnuram Versus Awadh Ram and another Appearance: Shri H.B. Agmwal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the appellant. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawy'er for the State/respondent No.2. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION OF C.P.C. ORAL ORDER (11.05.2011) This second appeal under Sectiou 100 of CPC has been preferred by the defendant against whom plaintiff'respondent No.l preferred the suit for declaration and pennanent injunction. (2) The dispute pertains to land admeasuring 1.48 acres bearing khasra No. 281/1 sifciated at Village Danitola, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. Admittedly, the land belonged to one Khorbahrin. Plaintiffs case was based on will dated 07/07/1992 (Ex.P-1). The deceased Khorbahrin was issueless and the plaintiff says that fhe deceased waSTiis Aunty (Ghachi). On the other hand, fhe defendant has also rested his claim and entitlement on a will Ex.D-1 ] which is also said to be executed on 07/07/1992. ! (3) The trial court dismissed the suit after finding that both the f wills are forged and do not inspire confidence. -UAVt.TUtI UJ. -2. (4) The first appellate court decreed the suit afl:er finding tliat the will in favour ofplaintiffEx. P-1 is proved. (5) Leamed senior advocate has argued that the first appellate court has wrongly appreciated the statement ofthe attesting witnesses ofthe will Ex.P-1 and that the findings regarding genuineness ofthe will Ex.P-1 is perverse. (6) This court has perosed the record. (7) Ex.P-1 is attested by Naiadas and De\Tiath Mandal. One ofthe attesting witness namely Devnath Mandal has been examined by the plaintiffas PW-2. The said witness has clearly stated that tfie will was typed as per the wishes of the deceased and it was read over to her hefore the execution ofthe will. (8) Leamed senior advocate vvould submit that this witness has failed to remember as to who was the person who read over the will before deceased Khorbahria. (9) In the opinion ofthis court the said part ofthe statement is not conclusive ofthe fact that the deceased was not at al! apprised ofthe contents ofthe documents. PW-2 Devnath has clearly stated that the vvill was prepared and was read over to the deceased and fhereafter the deceased executed the document. He has clearly stated that he has signed over the document in the presence of the deceased and the deceased had executed the document in his presence. (10) The defendant/appellant has examined DW-2 Umend Singh iwho is said to be the attesting witness ofEx.D-1, the will in favour of T :«3-?"^ er- -~5 the appellant. However, the said witness has stated that his signature on Ex.D-1 is forged. (11) Having gone through the evidence, this court is ofthe view that the findings recorded by the first appellate court holding that the will Ex.D-1 is proved is not perverse. (12) No substantial question of law arises in tliis appeal for determination. (13) The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Judge Mishra