Regular Second Appeal No. 4375 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4375 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 *** Sukhpal Kaur .. Appellant VS. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. Both the Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff-appellant in the suit for declaration wherein she claimed ownership and joint possession to the extent of 1/12th share in the suit property and also challenged the legality of Will dated 22.8.2000 executed by her father-in- law Kartar Singh in favour of defendant No.1 Gurbachan Singh, her brother-in-law. The plaintiff claimed share in the suit property being the widow of Bhag Singh son of Kartar Singh. According to her the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Kartar Singh, but the latter bequeathed the land in favour of his another son Gurbachan Singh-defendant No.1 by virtue of Will dated 22.8.2000. It was her further case that the said Will is not a genuine document and is surrounded with suspicious circumstances wherein even the name of her another son Bhag Singh was not mentioned and no share has been given to her being the widow of Bhag Singh. The very basis of the claim of the plaintiff was that she is widow of Bhag Singh. It is, however, apparent that the plaintiff failed to Regular Second Appeal No. 4375 of 2011 2 prove that her husband Bhag Singh has in fact died. No date, time of year of his death was proved by the plaintiff by leading evidence, worth of credence. She herself was not sure as to the death of her husband Bhag Singh. The Will dated 22.8.2000 challenged by the plaintiff was a registered document and the defendants by producing its scribe as well as attesting witnesses duly proved the execution thereof by Kartar Singh, who died on 14.11.2002 after about two years of its execution. Though the suit property was found ancestral, but it also emerges out from the perusal of impugned judgments that the plaintiff kept on litigating with her husband and also with her father-in-law Kartar Singh and thus, the Courts below held that it was very obvious to ignore her while executing the impugned Will. There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 07,2011 Jiten