IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.:559/2007 Decided on: 17.7.2008 Smt. Man Dassi …Appellant. Versus Smt. Mohini Devi and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) in Civil Appeal No. 15/2007. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Manali Camp at Kullu. The suit was resisted and contested by the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for convenience sake). The learned trial court dismissed the suit on 20.2.2007. The plaintiff preferred an appeal 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007 before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu dismissed the appeal on 25.7.2007. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2007. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that the findings recorded by both the learned courts below are contrary to record. He further contended that the defendants have failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will Ex.DW-2/A dated 10.7.1995. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. She has deposed in her affidavit Ex.PA that during the life time of Ganga Devi her mother the deceased Chhering Gyalchhan, father of plaintiff, kept defendant No.1 as mistress and defendants No.2 to 4 were born out of this wedlock. She further deposed that after the death of her mother Smt. Ganga Devi, her father was under the full control of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 compelled her father to execute will in her favour. PW-2 Narender Sharma has proved copy of special power of attorney Ex.PW-2/A. PW-3 Ms. Kamla Advocate, one of the attesting witnesses to the special power of attorney, has also proved the due execution of the special power of attorney Ex.PW-2/A. 3 Defendant No.1 has appeared as DW-1. She has deposed in her affidavit Ex.DA that her marriage was solemnized with Chhering Gyalchhan and out of the wedlock defendants No.2 to 4 were born and in lieu of the services rendered by her, he executed a registered will on 10.7.1995 in her favour. DW-2 Churu Ram had scribed the will dated 10.7.1995. He has deposed that the will was scribed at the instance of Chhering Gyalchhan, which was read over and explained to him, who after admitting the same to be correct had put his signatures in the presence of attesting witnesses. He has proved his signatures on the will Ex.DW-2/A, which was entered in his register at Sr. No. 428. DW-3 Devi Chand Kapoor, Advocate has testified on oath the manner in which he attested the will Ex.DW-2/A. He has stated that he attested the will alongwith other witness Budh Ram Lamberdar. He further deposed that he presented the will before the Sub Registrar, who also read and explained the same to the testator and witnesses and at that time, the testator was in sound disposing mind. It is evident from the contents of will that Chhering Gyalchha has bequeathed the property to the extent of 4 biswas only. It has come in the evidence that Mohini Devi was living with deceased at Manali whereas the plaintiff was living at different village. The execution of the will Ex.DW-2/A stands proved on the basis of statement of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. It has come in the statement of DW-1 that the will was executed in lieu of the services rendered by her. DW-2 has scribed the will and has categorically stated that the contents of the will were read over to the testator and the same was registered at Sr. No.428 in his register. DW-3 Sh. Devi Chand Kapoor, Advocate has deposed that he attested the will along with Sh. Budh Ram Lamberdar. He has also testified that the contents of the will were read over and explained to Chhering Gyalchhan, who after admitting 4 the same to be correct put his signatures on the will. He presented the will before the Sub Registrar, who also read over the contents of the same to the testator and thereafter the same was registered. According to him, Chhering Gyalchhan was in sound disposing mind. The plaintiff has failed to prove any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the will. The statements of DW-1 to DW-3 are reliable and have correctly been appreciated by both the courts below. DW-1 has not exercised any influence upon Chhering Gyalchhan, as alleged, and the will has been executed as per law. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 17, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*