R.S.A No. 2071 of 1982 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2071 of 1982 (O&M) Date of decision : August 12, 2010 Gurdit Singh (dead) through L.Rs, ...... Appellant (s) v. Koer Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Thapar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and Mr. S.S.Kamboj, Advocate for respondents No.8 and 10. *** 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 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant (since deceased now through L.Rs) whereby he had claimed that after the death of Nand Kaur widow of Kehar Singh he had succeeded to the land in dispute since they left behind no other L.Rs and he was the brother of Kehar Singh. R.S.A No. 2071 of 1982 (O&M) ::2:: Both the Courts below held that as regards one portion of the land in dispute, separate proceedings were pending. As regards the other portion of the land in dispute, the Courts below held that Nand Kaur, deceased, had executed a valid Will on 6.9.1976 in favour of respondents No.1 to 5. At the stage of admission of this appeal, no question of law were proposed but subsequently the following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the facts of the case and attending circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will spell out that hostile elements were actively working to wrest a huge estate of above 500 kanals by deviating natural succession by hoodwinking an illiterate and issueless widow/Testatrix ? ii) Whether in case of a Will shrouded in suspicious, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiffs and defendants ? What generally is an advisory proceedings becomes in such a case a matter of Court's conscience and then the true question which arise for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will in a case is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court as per authoritative dicta in AIR 1977 SC 74 ? iii) Whether the requirement of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act qua attestation of the Will read with Section of Indian Succession Act are meet with the in R.S.A No. 2071 of 1982 (O&M) ::3:: the instant case ? (sick) iv) Whether interpretation of the Will which has become contentions itself a question of law to be decided in a Regular Second Appeal and court must examine the facts and evidence on record ?” Taking question no. (iv) first, it cannot be disputed that in an appropriate case interpretation of a Will would be a question of law. However, in the present case what has been challenged is the fact of execution of the Will. The Will as such is unambiguous. What is being raised is a pure question of fact regarding the execution of the Will. In regard to all the questions proposed, it would be seen that the Courts below relied upon the fact that the Will was duly registered and witnessed. On a conspectus of all the evidence, it is evident that the judicial conscience of the Courts below was satisfied that the Will was indeed executed by Nand Kaur voluntarily. It must also be remembered that the appellant has not alleged or proved any where that he had rendered any service either to Nand Kaur or Kehar Singh. In the circumstances, there is no inherent improbability in Nand Kaur wanting to dispose of, what had become her personal property, by way of testament. The present is not a case where one child is ignored in favour of another child. Counsel for the appellant has taken me through the entire evidence and has vehemently attacked the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, while counsel for the respondents has strongly defended them and has argued that all the allegations raised by the appellant have been considered by the Courts below. In` the circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are either R.S.A No. 2071 of 1982 (O&M) ::4:: based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 12 , 2010. JUDGE `kk'