R. S. A. No. 1664 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1664 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 26, 2010 Om Parkash and others .... Appellants Vs. Manoj Kumar and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4983-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 286 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : This is second appeal by legal representatives of Shanker Lal – original plaintiff (since deceased), having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Shanker Lal – plaintiff was husband of Chanderawali. Defendant no.3 Chander Kalan is their daughter, whereas defendants no.1 R. S. A. No. 1664 of 2010 (O&M) 2 and 2 are sons of defendant no.3. The plaintiff in the suit challenged Will dated 07.03.2000 allegedly executed by Chanderawali in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 regarding the suit land. Chanderawali died on 13.03.2000. The Will was got registered after her death on 06.07.2000. The plaintiff alleged that the said Will was never executed by Chanderawali. The plaintiff claimed half share in the suit property along with Chander Kalan, being one of her natural heirs. The defendants pleaded that Chanderawali executed valid Will dated 07.03.2000 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2. The original plaintiff had deserted Chanderawali about 58 years ago and had contracted second marriage and turned out Chanderawali from the matrimonial home along with her daughter defendant no.3, who was hardly aged one year at that time. Thereafter, the plaintiff never visited or saw Chanderawali nor Chanderawali visited the plaintiff. Chanderawali lived with her mother and brother and after their death, she started residing with her daughter and son- in-law i.e. defendant no.3 and her husband Het Ram. They along with wife of brother of Het Ram used to look after Chanderawali, who, therefore, executed Will dated 07.03.2000 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2, who are none else, but grandsons of Chanderawali from her daughter Chander Kalan. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali, vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2005, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal R. S. A. No. 1664 of 2010 (O&M) 3 preferred by the plaintiff through his legal representatives has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of the plaintiff have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Will is dated 07.03.2000 and Chanderawali died just six days thereafter on 13.03.2000 and the Will was got registered after her death on 06.07.2000. However, the Will cannot be discarded merely on this ground. The defendants have proved the Will by examining both attesting witnesses, scribe as well as Notary, who had attested the Will as Notary. Their statements cannot be discarded. Notary had no interest in the case. Both attesting witnesses of the Will have also been examined. The Will has, therefore, been duly proved. The Will is also natural. The testatrix had only one daughter. The testatrix has executed the Will in favour of two sons of her daughter. The plaintiff, who was husband of the testatrix, had deserted her more than 50 years before the death of the testatrix and had contracted second marriage. Obviously therefore, the testatrix disinherited the plaintiff from her property and bequeathed the same in favour of her grandsons. The Will is, therefore, quite natural. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that original R. S. A. No. 1664 of 2010 (O&M) 4 plaintiff had given the suit land to his wife Chanderawali. The contention cannot be accepted in the absence of any pleadings or evidence to this effect. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below. The said finding is supported by elaborate reasons and analysis of evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in Regular Second Appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 26, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE