RSA 3715 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA 3715 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 Kirpal Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Shivpal Singh 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 J.S. Brar, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Vikas Behl, Advocate, for the caveator. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 53 kanals 3 marlas, as described in the head note of the plaint, was decreed. One Sunder Singh was initially owner of the suit land. After his death, his six sons inherited his estate in equal shares. The dispute is in respect of the estate of Ishar Singh, one of the sons of Sunder, who died issueless. Plaintiff-Kartar Singh, one of the sons of Sunder Singh, has filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that he being the nearest heir of RSA 3715 of 2008 (2) deceased-Ishar Singh is entitled to inherit the estate of Ishar Singh to the exclusion of all the sons of his other brothers. On the other hand, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 propounded a Will dated 24.9.1993. The said Will was proved to be executed, but it was found that the same is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances and the propounder(s) failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the suspicious circumstances delineated by the learned first Appellate Court in para 32 of the judgment are based upon inadmissible and irrelevant evidence and, therefore, the finding recorded on the basis of such evidence is perverse finding sufficient to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs. One of the primary facts taken into consideration by the learned first Appellate Court is that the deceased-Testator has been thumb marking the documents, whereas the Will is purported to be signed in Punjabi. The Court has also taken into consideration various documentary evidence, such as application dated 24.12.1976 (Ex.P1), entries from Sale Register dated 13.9.1994 and 23.11.1994 (Exhibits P.4 and P.5), sale deed dated 31.5.1976 (Exhibit P.4/1) and another sale deed dated 15.6.1984 (Exhibit P4/2), to return a finding of fact that the deceased was not signing in Punjabi, but has been thumb marking and, therefore, the Will is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. The documents produced by the plaintiff in support of the argument that the deceased was not signing the documents, but thumb marking the same, are of the year 1976, when an application was moved by Ishar Singh for sanction of three electric connections. Such documents bear the thumb impressions of Ishar Singh. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is RSA 3715 of 2008 (3) not proved that such thumb impressions were in fact, of Ishar Singh, is not tenable. The record produced is of a public authority maintained in its official business and relates to the period when there was no dispute between the parties. The production of the record from an authority, which is not party to the dispute, cannot be doubted on such an argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, the documents produced by the defendant in support of the plea that deceased used to sign has been considered and not found reliable. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Such findings are possible findings. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. I do not find that such findings give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2009 ds