RSA No.1628 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1628 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 26.04.2010 Harnek Singh ..Appellant Versus Manmohan Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This is an appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for possession of 1/4th share of the land of Laxman Singh. Both the Courts upheld a Will executed by Laxman Singh in favour of the respondents who were grandsons from another son. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are contrary to the documentary evidence on record and both the courts below misread and misconstrued and mis-appreciated the evidence on record and on the basis of that judgment and decree passed by both the courts below can be sustainable in the eyes of law, which amounts to the fact that the courts below passed the judgment and decree beyond their jurisdiction ? (ii) Whether even from the perusal of the statements RSA No.1628 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: of the attesting witness of the Will there is contradiction between the statements of the witnesses shows that the Will is under suspicious circumstances, and mere fact that the will is a registered Will, it will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding the validity of the Will where the suspicious exists ? (iii) Whether once the executant suffered a conclusive decree regarding the same very property after execution of the Will and without disclosing the execution of the Will in favour of the defendant no.1 to 4 and due to that decree the will executed by him stood revoke itself ? It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Apart from other factors what has influenced the Courts below is that in a suit filed by the respondents Laxman Singh had appeared and had admitted their claim on the property in dispute. It is a different matter that the decree was set aside on some other ground subsequently. It was in the face of this statement that the Courts below came to the conclusion that the respondents had been able to prove that Laxman Singh had also executed a Will in their favour. Learned counsel relied upon Kartar Singh & Anr. Vs. Dilber Singh (dead) through LRs., 2009 (3) Civil Court Cases 358, wherein this Court has held that the wrong mentioning of the name of one attesting witness by other witnesses is a suspicious circumstances. In my opinion, the question of validity or otherwise of a Will has many facets. What may be a determinative suspicious circumstance in one case may pale into significance in another case. In the present appeal, what has been found is that Laxman Singh even during his RSA No.1628 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: life-time wanted that the property should be transferred in favour of the respondents. Once that was established, the fact that he made a Will in their favour would be even more probable. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhukar D.Shende v. Tarabaiaba Shedage, (2002)2 SCC 85, wherein it was held as follows :- “8. The requirement of proof of a will is the same as any other document excepting that the evidence tendered in proof of a will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If after considering the matters before it, that is, the facts and circumstances as emanating from the material available on record of a given case, the court either believes that the will was duly executed by the testator or considers the existence of such fact so probable that any prudent person ought, under the circumstances of that particular case, to act upon the supposition that the will was duly executed by the testator, then the factum of execution of will shall be said to have been proved. The delicate structure of proof framed by a judicially trained mind cannot stand on weak foundation nor survive any inherent defects therein but at the same time ought not to be permitted to be demolished by wayward pelting of stones of suspicion and supposition by wayfarers and waylayers.....” In the circumstances, learned counsel not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact regarding the validity of Will are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so RSA No.1628 of 2010 (O & M) ::4:: as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. April 26, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE