RSA No.3678 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3678 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.02.2010. Jit Singh alias Amarjit Singh .……Appellant Versus Smt. Mohinder Kaur and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Jit Singh alias Amarjit Singh defendant No.2, who has been unsuccessful in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. It is unfortunate case of litigation between family members who are descendants of Bhagat Singh. Suit was filed by Bhajan Singh-one of the sons of Bhagat Singh. Bhajan Singh died during the pendency of the suit and is represented by respondent Nos.1 to 6 as his legal representatives. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also sons of Bhagat Singh. Another son of Bhagat Singh namely Jaswant Singh predeceased Bhagat Singh and is represented by respondent Nos.8, 9 and 10. Bhagat Singh also had one more son Jasmail Singh who also predeceased Bhagat Singh and is represented by respondent Nos.11 to 15. Respondent Nos.16 and 17 are daughters of Bhagat Singh whereas Smt. Banti defendant No.1 (now deceased) was widow of Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh executed Will dated 08.03.1989 in favour of all his sons i.e three surviving sons i.e Bhajan Singh, Jit Singh and Kashmir Singh and RSA No.3678 of 2009 -2- legal heirs of two predeceased sons i.e Jaswant Singh and Jasmail Singh. The plaintiff Bhajan Singh filed suit on the basis of said Will. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that Bhagat Singh executed a subsequent Will dated 27.09.1990 regarding 3 kanals land in favour of his wife Banti defendant No.1 (now since deceased). Banti-defendant No.1, who died during the pendency of the suit, allegedly executed a Will dated 07.12.1998 in favour of Surjit Kaur wife of appellant-defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the dispute is regarding 3 kanals land which was allegedly bequeathed by Bhagat Singh in favour of Banti defendant No.1, who later on bequeathed it in favour of appellant's wife. Both the courts below have found that Will dated 27.09.1990 is not proved to be executed by Bhagat Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both marginal witnesses of Will dated 27.09.1990 had died and, therefore, could not be examined as witness to prove the execution of the Will. Scribe of the said Will was examined as witness, but admittedly the said scribe did not know the testator Bhagat Singh personally. It is thus apparent that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to prove Will dated 27.09.1990 to have been executed by Bhagat Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not refer to any such evidence on record. On the other hand, the said Will was allegedly thumb marked by Bhagat Singh. However, the appellant did not even examine any finger print expert as witness to prove that Will RSA No.3678 of 2009 -3- dated 27.09.1990 had been thumb marked by Bhagat Singh, although science of finger print comparison is a perfect science. Consequently, adverse inference arises against the appellant. There is no explanation as to why the appellant has not examined any finger print expert to prove the aforesaid Will. Moreover, the fact remains that there is practically no evidence to prove the alleged Will. There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity, in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 08.02.2010 A. Kaundal