R.S.A.No. 4706 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4706 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 15.2.2011 Goverdhan Dass and another ......Appellants Versus Pooja .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the house in dispute to the extent of half share each in terms of Will dated 28.11.1999 executed by Subhash Chander in their favour. Subhash Chander was real brother of the plaintiffs and was owner in possession of the house in dispute. He had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs. Subhash Chander was divorcee and defendant was his daughter. Subhash Chander and his wife had been litigating with each other. Defendant was allowed maintenance from her father and was receiving the same since June, 1985. Defendant was residing with her mother and had never taken care of Subhash Chander. R.S.A.No. 4706 of 2009(O&M) 2 Defendant, in her written statement, averred that the Will in question was a fabricated document and had not been executed by Subhash Chander. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the deceased Subhash Chander executed a valid Will dated 28.11.1999 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is known as Reetika Sharm, if so to what effect? OPD 3. Whether the simple suit for declaration is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2007. Appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs have based reliance on Will Ex.P-1 dated 28.11.1999. Will is a sacred document and speaks of the mind of the deceased after his death. In order to prove the due execution of the Will, the propounder of the Will has to examine at least one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. The propounder of the Will is further required to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. R.S.A.No. 4706 of 2009(O&M) 3 Although registration of Will is not compulsory but the registration of Will goes a long way in establishing its genuineness. In the present case Will was attested by Chanan Ram and Kuldeep Singh. Chanan Ram had died on 29.6.2003. However, the plaintiffs had failed to examine other attesting witness of the Will Kuldeep Singh to prove its due execution. There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that since the plaintiffs had deposited the diet money for summoning Kuldeep Singh and no summons had been issued qua the said witness, the onus on the plaintiffs stood discharged. The counsel for the plaintiffs had closed the evidence of the plaintiffs without making any effort to examine Kuldeep Singh as a witness. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the non-examination of Kuldeep Singh was not due to any fault of the plaintiffs. Raunki Ram had been examined to establish the signatures of Chanan Ram on the Will but by examination of the said witness, the execution of the Will was not established. Moreover, the Will Ex.P-1 is an un-registered document. A perusal of the copy of the Will (shown during the course of arguments) shows that the signatures of Subhash Chander appeared on the left as well as right side of the Will. Moreover, the executant has not given any reason as to why he was disinheriting his daughter. Although the deceased had been in litigation with his wife but that does not mean that the deceased was also not having any affection towards his daughter. The defendant was born in the year 1977 and was, thus, about 13 years old at the time of death of Subhash Chander. Hence, it cannot be expected that the 13 years old daughter of the executant would have taken R.S.A.No. 4706 of 2009(O&M) 4 care of her father. Thus, the Courts below rightly held that the Will in question had not been duly proved to have been executed by the executant. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 15, 2011 anita