R.S.A. No. 4078 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4078 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 5.2.2009 Prem Singh & another .......... Appellants Versus Smt. Kartari & others. ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 14.1.2008 and 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for declaration that they were owners in possession of the property in dispute under a Will dated 13.8.2001, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiffs set up a Will dated 13.8.2001, which was said to have been executed by Rati Ram father of the plaintiffs-appellant vide which it was claimed that the property stood bequeathed to plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.1. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have rejected the Will by recording the following findings :- 1. The Will is on two papers. Line spacing in R.S.A. No. 4078 of 2008 -2- both drastically varies. Material on first page is congested, whereas it is not so on page No.2. 2. there is no name and identity of the scribe of the Will Kaptan Singh (PW2) states that the Will was scribed by him whereas Phool Singh (PW3) makes a mention of some Vashisht. It is however conceded that the Will was not scribed by any deed writer though there was availability of 6-7 such deed writer. 3. Thumb impressions on the Will do not show consented affixation of the same by the testator. 4. The Notary Public has attested third thumb impression on the Will mentioning 'attested as identified” but has not mentioned name and particulars of the identifier. 5. Office of Tehsildar was just at a hand. The testator is purported to have gone to the Notary Public but had not gone to Tehsildar (Sub Registrar) for registration of the Will, though Notary Public and Sub Registrar were located at equal distance. 6. No details of the property are given in the Will (Ex.P1). 7. Signatures and particulars of the witnesses are in different ink. 8. The Will (Ex.P1) is of 13.8.2001 whereas the testator had died on 16.8.2001.” The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the suspicious circumstances pointed out in the Will cannot be said to be R.S.A. No. 4078 of 2008 -3- suspicious circumstances and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence brought on record. The learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the learned Courts below committed an error in taking the circumstances, mentioned above, to be suspicious circumstance to discard the Will. However, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted as it is well settled law that cumulative effect of all suspicious circumstances is required to be taken. The suspicious circumstances taken collective, create a doubt that the Will propounded by the appellant-defendant was not a genuine Will of testator. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Will propounded was not genuine document. The concurrent findings are not open to challenge in the regular second appeal as this Court can not reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned Courts below unless the findings are perverse or outcome of misreading of evidence. No merit. Dismissed. 5.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE