RSA No.4355 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.12923-C of 2008 & RSA No.4355 of 2008 Decided on :22.01.2010 Sant Baba Pritpal Singh ... Appellant versus Lachhman Singh & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. H.S.Lalli, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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. (ORAL) CM No.12923-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 99 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.4355 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below whereby the suit of the appellant claiming that he has inherited the property of Desa Singh on the basis of one Will executed in favour of Surjit Kaur by Desa Singh and a subsequent Will in favour of appellant by Surjit Kaur has been dismissed. Both the Courts below have held that the appellant could not prove that Surjit Kaur was married to Desa Singh after the death of his first wife. The courts relied on the testimony of the sister of the aforesaid Surjit Kaur who admitted the fact that Surjit RSA No.4355 of 2008 -2- Kaur was married with Pargat Singh. Further as regards the execution of the Will, the Courts below have held that the first Will dated 27.08.1980 (in favour of Surjit Kaur) was not proved in terms of Section 66 of the Evidence Act/Section 63 of the Succession Act. Following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the evidence regarding joint account in the bank in the name of Desa Singh & Surjit Kaur as per Ex.P-1 and also bears photograph of both of them and entry in voter list Ex.P-2 are not an evidence falling within the purview of Section 50 of the Evidence Act and is not admissible in evidence to prove joint living of Desa Singh & Surjit Kaur? ii) Whether the execution of registered Will on 27.08.1980 and existence of such will in record of Sub Registrar as proved by Clerk from the record in its possession is not sufficient to prove the due execution of the Will? iii) Whether the evidence of the successor of marginal witness is not of any value to prove the signatures on the registered will dated 27.08.1980 to prove its due execution? iv) Whether there is no value of a document which remained in existence for nearly 17 years after its execution and registration and thereafter many other documents took place such as agreement to sell, joint account and voter list? v) Whether the will dated 27.08.1980 is not a genuine RSA No.4355 of 2008 -3- document in view of the fact that the sons and daughters of Desa Singh remained litigating with latter during his life-time? vi) Whether the marriage between Desa Singh & Surjit Kaur is necessary to be proved while the right to property has been claimed on the basis of Will and law is that the will can be executed in favour of the stranger also? vii) Whether the findings of the court are based on wrong assumptions and presumptions which are hit by the provisions of Section 164 of the Evidence Act? viii) Whether there is mistake on the part of the courts below to treat a document not to be duly proved particularly when both the marginal witnesses were dead and their successor proved the attestation identifying their signatures and clerk from the office of the Sub Registrar accepted the existence of Will in their register? ix) Whether the courts below findings are perverse and illegal being based on finding contrary to law? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. The courts below have correctly analyzed the evidence, inter alia the fact that the appellant failed to appear as his own witness as also that the thumb impressions/signatures of the attesting witnesses of the Will have not been established. Consequently, the suit of the appellant was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to be liable for RSA No.4355 of 2008 -4- interference under Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. January 22, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE