R.S.A.No.1976 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1976 of 2009 Date of Decision : 22.7.2009 Tript Singh @ Tripat Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Mans Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.N.Moudgil, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Ravinder Kaur Manaise, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 sons of Darshan Singh, are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration filed by Mans Kaur claiming estate of Amar Singh by way of natural succession, was decreed. Amar Singh S/o Kabal Singh died on 28.9.1997. Plaintiff- Mans Kaur is his daughter. Amar Singh died leaving behind 2 sons namely Darshan Singh and Sukhdev Singh, as also four daughters including Mans Kaur. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of pre- deceased son Darshan Singh. Defendant Nos.1 and 2-appellants relied upon Will dated 10.3.1997 allegedly executed by Amar Singh bequeathing half share of his estate to the sons of Darshan Singh and remaining half share to Sukhdev Singh. The said Will was said to be registered after the death of deceased on 30.3.1998. R.S.A.No.1976 of 2009 2 The learned first Appellate Court decreed the suit in view of the fact that the original Will itself was not produced. It was found that though the permission was granted to the defendants to lead secondary evidence of the Will, but the attested copy from the office of Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur creates a doubt regarding the execution and registration of the Will. The plea of the defendant-appellants that the original Will was handed over to Halqa Patwari at the time of sanction of mutation, but the same was not located was found to be unbelievable. It was found that Tripat Singh-defendant appearing as PW-4, has admitted in his cross-examination that he never visited Halqa Patwari to collect the Will after handing over the same for the purpose of sanctioning the mutation. The Court found that the original Will was not produced in order to defeat the right of the plaintiffs to got the thumb impressions of the deceased Amar Singh compared, with his thumb impressions on the sale deed. It was also found that the defendants in the written statement filed on 20.11.2000 have not taken the plea that the Will has been mis- placed. It was only in an application for production of documents, it was submitted that the Will is missing. On the basis of the evidence, the learned first Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the original Will has not been intentionally produced by the appellants. It has been also found that Amar Singh was living in his Village Gunnopur alongwith his son Sukhdev Singh, but the Will has been executed at Pathankot at the residence of Devinder Kaur, mother of present appellants. The deceased was more than 75 years of age. It has been R.S.A.No.1976 of 2009 3 further found that both the attesting witness and deed writer are said to be residents of Village Gunnopur, but called for execution of the Will at Pathankot, which is at a distance of 60 kms from the village. It was found to be improper and a suspicious circumstance. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the evidence of DW-4 has been misread as he has deposed that he has contacted Halqa Patwari after a 1 ½ months, when he was told that the Will was not available. Even if it is so, the fact remains that the appellants have not produced the Halqa Patwari, who was best witness to depose that the Will was handed over to him by the appellants or that Will has been lost, when it was in revenue record. The reasoning given by the learned first Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. The Will has been registered after the death of Amar Singh on 30.3.1998. What is produced in evidence, is the attested copy from the office of the Sub Registrar of the Will registered, after the death of the deceased. The circumstances of registration and production of an attested copy are strong suspicious circumstances, which have been rightly taken into consideration by the learned first Appellate Court to found that the Will is not proved to be executed and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Such findings are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence. Even after reappreciating the evidence, I do not find that the findings of fact recorded by the first Appellate Court are suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law R.S.A.No.1976 of 2009 4 arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 22.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE