FAO No.4817of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 06.8.2010. Ms.Sudesh --Appellant vs. Ms. Seema Rani and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma,Advocate,for the appellant Ms.Seema Rani, respondent No.1.in person. Ms.Anjali Kukkar,Advocate,for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This appeal is at the instance of respondent No.2, against the order of Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, dated 22.7.2009, by which a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short,the Act), was allowed and the 'Letter of Administration' in respect of Will dated 03.7.2003 was ordered to be issued in favour of Seema Rani (respondent No.1) on filing of requisite stamp fee subject to the receipt of report of the Collector certifying the value of the property in question and other movable and immovable property of the deceased/testator. In brief, one Bishan Dass was married to Tulsi alias Malka Rani and had three daughters,namely Santosh, Sudesh (appellant) and FAO No.4817of 2009 (O&M) 2 Seema Rani (respondent No.1). Bishan Dass pre-deceased his wife Tulsi alias Malka Rani, who executed a registered Will dated 03.7.2003 (Ex.P2) in favour of her unmarried daughter Seema Rani. Tulsi alias Malka Rani died on 24.3.2005. She was the owner of house No. 2937,Ground Floor, Sector 47-C,Chandigarh, allotted to her by the Chandigarh Housing Board. Seema Rani became owner of the said house by virtue of Will (Ex.P-2). She filed a petition under Section 276 of the Act, for grant of probate. In those proceedings, her sister Santosh was proceeded against ex-parte as she did not choose to contest. No objection was raised even from the General Public. The probate petition was contested only by her other sister Sudesh, who had alleged that the house in question was not self acquired property of the testator. She was not in a sound disposing mind and the Will dated 03.7.2003 is false and fabricated document. Seema Rani appeared as PW-1. She examined Ravi Sharma, one of the marginal witnesses of the Will as PW-2. Shiv Rattan Sharma, Senior Assistant from Chandigarh Housing Board,Chandigarh as PW-4 and tendered certain documents including the registered Will (Ex.P-2), whereas Sudesh appeared as RW-1 and examined her husband Subhash as RW-2. The learned Court below examined the entire case from different angles. It was found that the Will was registered. Gurmukh Singh, Registration Clerk of the office of Sub Registrar, U.T,Chandigarh appeared as PW-3 who had brought the summoned record stated that Will in question was registered at Serial No. 1199 Book No.3, Vol. 265 page 168 dated 03.7.2003 and was witnessed by marginal witness Ravi Sharma, who appeared as PW-2. It was also found that both the daughters of the FAO No.4817of 2009 (O&M) 3 testator,namely, Sudesh and Santosh were happily married, out of which Santosh did not choose to contest. The testator had bequeathed the property in question in favour of her unmarried daughter Seema Rani, who was living with her as she was suffering from cancer. It was thus, found that exclusion of other two daughters was natural and there was nothing to suspect. It was also found that there is no evidence on record that on the date of execution of the Will, the testator was ill and was not in a sound disposing mind. It was found that the testator had studied up to 7th class and used to sign. She knew both Hindi and Punjabi languages. No evidence was brought on record by the appellant in rebuttal. It was further found that the presence of Seema Rani at the time of execution of the Will is not a suspicious circumstance because she was the only one who was looking after her mother after the death of her father. Both mother and daughter were living together after the marriage of both the elder sisters and being the youngest one and unmarried, she was looking after her mother who was suffering from cancer. Therefore, her presence at the time of execution of the Will in question does not create any suspicion in view of the fact that the Will was registered at the instance of the testator. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the arguments raised before the trial Court yet I do not find any error in the findings recorded while dealing with arguments which have been raised before that court and are reiterated before this Court. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 06.8.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge FAO No.4817of 2009 (O&M) 4