Regular Second Appeal No. 1031 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1031 of 2007 Date of decision : May 05, 2010 Surjit Kaur and others ....Appellants versus Gurdip Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by legal representatives of original plaintiff Bhagwan Singh who remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiff Bhagwan Singh had three brothers Balwant Singh, Sowaran Singh and Chanan Singh all dead and has a sister Bachan Kaur defendant no. 8. Defendants no. 1 to 4 are legal heirs of Balwant Singh whereas defendants no. 5 to 7 are legal heirs of Sowaran Singh. The dispute is regarding the estate of Chanan Singh. The plaintiff alleged that he and his three brothers Balwant Singh, Sowaran Singh and Chanan Singh had 1/4th share each in suit land measuring 207 kanals 7 marlas. On the death of Chanan Singh in or about the year 1983, his 1/4th share in the suit land was inherited by his three Regular Second Appeal No. 1031 of 2007 -2- brothers and one sister i.e. 1/16th share each in the suit land. The plaintiff thus claimed that he, Balwant Singh, Sowaran Singh became owners to the extent of 5/16th share each and defendant no. 8 Bachan Kaur became owner to the extent of 1/16th share in the suit land. Defendants no. 1, 2 and 5 claimed Will dated 8.12.1982 executed by Chanan Singh in their favour regarding Chanan Singh's 1/4th share in the suit land. The said Will has been challenged by the plaintiff in the suit. On the other hand, defendants no. 1, 2 and 5 asserted that the said Will is legal and valid Will. Both the courts below have found that the Will is duly proved to have been executed by Chanan Singh in favour of defendants no. 1, 2 and 5. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.1998 and first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by legal representatives of plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. To prove the Will, contesting defendants examined Amar Nath, scribe of the Will as DW1, both marginal witnesses of the Will Puran Singh as DW2 and Mohni Masih as DW3. The Will was got registered after the death of testator Chanan Singh. Registration Clerk was also examined. In view of this evidence, both the courts found that the Will was duly proved. It may be added here that the original Will was produced in mutation proceedings and the revenue authorities did not produce the file of mutation case in spite of being summoned and therefore, the contesting Regular Second Appeal No. 1031 of 2007 -3- defendants were permitted to lead secondary evidence and accordingly photostat copy of the Will has been proved. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Amar Nath scribe of the Will is not reliable witness and there are many cuttings and over writings in different entries of his register which had not been attested by the concerned parties. His register has also not been page marked. On the basis of aforesaid contentions, it cannot be said that the Will has not been proved. Admittedly, there is no cutting or over writing in the entry in the register of the scribe relating to the Will in question. Cuttings or over writings in other entries would have no effect on the validity of the Will. Moreover, in addition to it, the defendants have examined both the attesting witnesses of the Will who have duly proved the same. Both the courts on appreciation of evidence have come to the concurrent conclusion that the Will in question has been proved to have been duly executed by Chanan Singh testator. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) May 05, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'