RSA No.1262 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1262 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2011. Kuldip Kaur ……Appellant Versus Jasbir Kaur and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.3525-C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal Plaintiff-Kuldip Kaur, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Waryam Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. He died on 03.03.1993 leaving behind defendant Nos.1 RSA No.1262 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - and 2 as his sons, plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 and 5 as daughters and defendant Nos.3 and 6 to 9 as widow and issues of pre- deceased son Jasbir Singh. The plaintiff on the basis of natural succession claimed 1/6th share in the suit property by filing the instant suit. It was alleged that Will dated 13.12.1989 set up by defendant Nos.1 to 3 allegedly executed by Waryam Singh and the consequent mutation are null and void as Waryam Singh never executed the alleged Will. It was also alleged that Waryam Singh was physically unfit for about five years before his death. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 while admitting the relationship between the parties and while also admitting that Waryam Singh was owner in possession of the suit property, broadly denied the other plaint allegations. It was pleaded that Waryam Singh executed registered Will dated 13.12.1989 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 bequeathing his property to them in equal shares i.e 1/3rd share each. The said Will is genuine and valid. Waryam Singh was in sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will and executed the Will voluntarily. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2006 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and RSA No.1262 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - decree dated 12.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Fate of the lis hinges on the issue of valid execution of the impugned Will. Defendants have led sufficient evidence to prove valid execution of the impugned Will by Waryam Singh. Plaintiff has admitted that her father Waryam Singh remained Member of Legislative Assembly many times. She also admitted that Waryam Singh was a leader of Congress Party. It was also admitted that Waryam Singh remained active leader and worker of Congress Party till his death. The plaintiff even admitted that till the time of his death, Waryam Singh was attending meetings of Congress Party and participating in the activities of the said party. Consequently, the stand of the plaintiff that the Waryam Singh was physically incapable for five years before his death is demolished by plaintiff’s own testimony. The plaintiff admitted that she knew Sardar Mohan Singh, who was President of City Congress Committee. Plaintiff also admitted that her father Waryam Singh had good relations with family of Mohan Singh and of Vishwamitter Sekhri, who also remained Member of Legislative Assembly from Congress Party. Aforesaid Mohan Singh and Inder Sekhri younger son of Vishwamitter Sekhri are two of the three attesting witnesses of the impugned Will. Third RSA No.1262 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - attesting witness of the Will is S. K. Gupta, Advocate, Batala. The plaintiff admitted that she also knew S. K. Gupta, although she did not know if S. K. Gupta is also active leader of Congress Party. Defendants have examined S. K. Gupta, Advocate attesting witness of the Will to prove due execution of the Will. Defendants have also examined scribe of the Will namely Jatinder Mohan, Deed Writer. Both of them have stated that the Will was duly executed by Waryam Singh. Their statements could not be impeached in cross-examination. Their statements are sufficient to prove due execution of the impugned Will. In addition to it, the Will is registered one. Registration of the Will further adds to its authenticity. The plaintiff pleaded that the Will is forged and fabricated and it was not executed by Waryam Singh. However, it is plaintiff’s own case that Waryam Singh was a wealthy person having remained Member of the Legislative Assembly and was well known in the area. In this view of the matter, the question of forging the Will by impersonation did not arise particularly because the Will is registered one. The Sub-Registrar would not have registered the Will if Waryam Singh himself had not appeared before the Sub-Registrar and if the Will had not been executed voluntarily by the testator Waryam Singh. Both the Courts below have arrived at concurrent finding regarding due execution of the impugned Will. The said finding is justified by the evidence on record and is supported by very detailed RSA No.1262 of 2011 (O & M) - 5 - reasons recorded by both the Courts below in elaborate judgments. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence in any manner. Consequently, the said finding cannot be interfered in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the said finding is the only finding that could be arrived at on the basis of the material on record. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16.03.2011 A.kaundal