Regular Second Appeal No. 3812 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 3812 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.9.2011 Surjit Kaur and Another ... Appellants Versus Krishna Rani and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for caveator/respondent 2-Parshotam Dass. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Civil Misc. No. 11651-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of one day in filing of the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No. 3812 of 2009 The present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants to the suit. Munshi Ram was married with Krishan Devi and from their wedlock, two sons namely Ram Lal and Parshotam Dass, plaintiffs and two daughters, namely Surjit Kaur and Manjit Kaur, defendants, were born. The controversy, in the present appeal, revolves around the Regular Second Appeal No. 3812 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Will dated 24.4.1998 Ex.D1 made by Krishan Devi. The sons of Krishan Devi, namely Ram Lal and Parshotam Das had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the land measuring 67 kanals 8 marlas to the extent of half share in the land measuring 134 kanals 16 marlas out of the total land measuring 199 kanals 7 marlas, detail and description whereof have been given in the plaint. The plaintiffs have sought joint possession of the land. They have also sought consequent relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their lawful possession over the suit land. The defendants to the suit had also laid their claim to the estate of Munshi Ram on the basis of Will dated 24.4.1998 Ex.D1 made by Krishan Devi. It is not disputed that Munshi Ram had bequeathed 2/3rd share of the land in favour of Krishan Devi and 1/3rd share of the land in favour of Ram Lal, plaintiff. The trial Court had formulated a specific issue regarding the validity of Will dated 24.4.1998 Ex.D1. The parties to the suit had led their evidence. The defendants had examined Harish Kumar, Document Writer, Scribe of the Will Ex.D1 as DW.2 and Harminder Singh, nephew of the deceased, as DW.3, who was the attesting witness to the Will. However, another attesting witness to the Will namely Khushal Singh, brother of deceased Krishan Devi, was not examined. Even though the diet money was deposited by the defendants, he was given up. The trial Court took various factors into consideration to hold that the Will Ex.D1 is surrounded by the following suspicious circumstances: a) The Will is stated to have been executed on 24.4.1998, whereas testator of the Will Krishan Devi Regular Second Appeal No. 3812 of 2009 (O&M) 3 was admitted in the hospital from 25.4.1998 to 30.4.1998 and she was suffering from meningitis (high brain fever). b) The Court has relied upon the deposition of the attending doctor made before the authorities who sanctioned mutation. In that statement, the doctor has stated that Krishan Devi was not talking properly and she was not fully responsive. c) Besides the testimony of the attending doctor, the Court held that the Will dated 24.4.1998 Ex.D1 was got registered on 27.4.1998. On that day, Krishan Devi was also an Indoor patient. Furthermore, her condition deteriorated and she was got admitted in Mission Hospital, Ferozepur, where she died on 21.5.1998. The Court further held that on 24.4.1998, the Will was not got registered and the explanation, given by the witnesses that on that day the Sub Registrar was not available, has not been found to be true. The Court further relied upon the testimony of DW.2 who had stated that at the time he had scribed the Will, being a Deed Writer, he was not informed that the parties intended to get the Will registered. The Court further held that on 24.4.1998 Sub Registrar, Jalalabad, had registered 23 documents, therefore, explanation that on that day the Sub Registrar was not available, is contradicted Regular Second Appeal No. 3812 of 2009 (O&M) 4 by documentary evidence. The concurrent finding of fact has been returned by both the Courts below that due to medical condition and attending circumstances, Krishan Devi was not in a fit condition to execute the Will dated 24.4.1998 Ex.D1. After appreciating the evidence, both the Courts below have held that the Will is accompanied by various suspicious circumstances. This Court, in regular second appeal, cannot re-appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence. Reasons stated by both the Courts below to discard the Will Ex.D1 are only possible after appreciation of evidence. Therefore, this finding cannot be termed as perverse. Furthermore, both the Courts below had meticulously adjudged the evidence. Hence, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellants especially when no question of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised, during the course of arguments, for consideration of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 5, 2011 “DK”