RSA No. 4563 of 2004 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4563 of 2004 Date of Decision: 31.8.2009 Balwinder Singh ......Appellant Versus Amarjit Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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? Present: Shri H.S. Grewal, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration claiming the estate of Bahadur Singh, on the basis of Will dated 17.9.1993, was dismissed. Bahadur Singh died on 25.9.1993, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants, sons and daughters of Bahadur Singh. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding that the execution of the Will is not proved. The Courts have taken into consideration the statement of DW6 Fateh Chand Sharma, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, who has compared signatures of deceased Bahadur Singh with the signatures on record of Cooperative Agricultural Society. In RSA No. 4563 of 2004 (2) a suit filed by Bahadur Singh, an application for impleading legal heirs was filed including the plaintiff Balwinder Singh. However, he has not disclosed in such proceedings that he is the sole legal heir of Bahadur Singh, on the basis of the Will in question. Still further, it has been found that the attesting witnesses of the Will are not known to the testator and in fact, they are from different locality and that they had inter-action with the plaintiff. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence that the execution of the Will is not proved. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 31-08-2009 ds