R.S.A No. 2805 of 2003 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2805 of 2003 Date of decision : August 12, 2009 Hardam Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Jaswant Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, 5 and 6. *** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for declaration that he was also entitled to inherit the property of Gajjan Singh on the basis of natural succession/survivorship and that the Will dated 15.1.1998 is null and void and not binding upon his rights. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the execution of the Will is duly proved by the statements of the scribe as well as by the attesting R.S.A No. 2805 of 2003 ::2:: witness and further more when the same is registered ? ii) Whether the judgment passed in some other case can be read in other case without proving the same ? iii) Whether the share of the coparcener becomes his personal property in his hands ?” At the very outset, it may be noticed that counsel for the appellant has not disputed the finding that the property was ancestral in the hands of Gajjan Singh and, thus, has restricted his argument only to that share which would have fallen to Gajjan Singh in the event of partition, arguing that at-least qua that share the suit of the plaintiff had to be dismissed. In these circumstances, the key question is question No.1. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial Court has accepted the version of the appellant that the Will was duly executed and that the learned lower appellate Court has erred in reversing that finding. It would be seen that the said question is a pure question of fact. Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court but has not been able to persuade me that the finding of fact that the appellant has not been able to fully explain the suspicious circumstances is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 12, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 2805 of 2003 ::3::