1 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.230/2009 Vijay Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi DATE OF ORDER : 7.7.2010 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. R.K. Singhal, for the appellant. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nohar. In brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent an old lady preferred a suit against the defendant appellant to declare that the “Will” dated 5.7.1993, said to have been executed by her husband late Shri Balu Ram in operative void, ineffective and without having legal consequences. As per the plaintiff, her husband Shri Balu Ram was a 'gair khatedar' tenant of 17½ bighas of land situated in Chak No.5A in Tehsil Nohar and the defendant appellant on basis of a Will is claiming himself owner of the aforesaid land. 2 The trial court after considering the evidence available on record held that the plaintiff was the sole legal representative of late Shri Balu Ram and the Will executed by aforesaid Shri Balu Ram in favour of a third person without leaving any part of the property for his wife is quite suspicious. The trial court also reached at the conclusion that the Will in question was not made voluntarily. The appellate court considered the entire matter and affirmed the findings given by the trial court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant defendant that at the time of execution of Will Shri Balu Ram was hale and hearty and as such, the presumption drawn by the court below that the Will was not executed voluntarily is ill founded. I have examined the entire record of the trial court, which was called for by this Court under an order dated 11.9.2009 and also examined the judgments impugned. The courts below by taking into consideration all relevant factors including health of late Shri Balu Ram and also the fact that Shri Balu Ram and his wife plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi were living together and were leading too a happy married life, there was no reason for not leaving any part of his property in her favour, gave the findings. The findings, so given, are based on sound appreciation of evidence and are also quite just and 3 proper. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law that may require further adjudication. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to disturb the findings given by the courts below. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. RM/