RSA No. 1312 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1312 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: February 24 , 2010 Gurmit Singh ...... Appellant Versus Sawinder Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.R.S. Bains, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant whereby he had challenged the inheritance of respondent No.1 on the basis of a Will by the mother. It is not disputed that the Will in dispute was a registered Will. It is also not disputed that as regards the execution of the Will the marginal witnesses and the scribe deposed clearly and categorically to the effect that deceased Mohinder Kaur had executed the Will in her free mind and without any pressure. The learned trial Court, however, took the view that there was an active partition of the respondents in so much as one of the RSA No. 1312 of 2007(O&M) 2 witnesses had admitted that the respondents had gone to the Registration Authorities with the testator and the witnesses. The learned trial Court also took adverse notice of the fact that the allegation of the respondents with regard to the alleged bitterness between the appellant and his mother was not proven. Further, the learned trial Court took adverse notice of the fact that no reason was mentioned for disinheriting the appellant or in completely ignoring the daughter. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, reversed the findings as mentioned above. The court found that the other class-I heir namely daughter not only did not challenge the Will till her death rather her son came and admitted the genuineness of the Will. The learned Lower Appellate Court also has observed that since the Will is executed with the sole purpose of deviating from intestate succession the argument that one of the heirs has been deprived of a share cannot be stretched so far as to hobble the rights of the testator. The court also noticed that the Will was a registered document and that its execution had been duly proved by cogent testimony of the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe. The following question has been proposed:- i) Whether finding of the Additional District Judge on issue No.1 reversing finding of the trial court and holding that Mohinder Kaur executed legal and valid Will Ex.D-1i n favour of defendant No.1.suffers from perversity being contrary to evidence on record and settled principle of law and, therefore, unsustainable? Even though it is said that question regarding will is a mixed question of law and fact yet the question proposed is a pure question of fact. It could have been a question of law if there was some ambiguity in the terms of the will and the same had to be interpreted. As regards the question framed, learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the RSA No. 1312 of 2007(O&M) 3 finding of fact recorded thereon is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding the question proposed above against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 24 , 2010 sunita