Regular Second Appeal No. 366 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 366 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.9.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ... Appellant Versus Ruldu Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.S. Brar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 4 and 5. Respondents No. 6 and 7 ex parte. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The plaintiff/appellant, having failed in two rounds of litigation, has approached this Court by filing the present regular second appeal. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal 19½ marlas out of the land measuring 22 kanals, detail and description whereof has been given in the plaint and furthermore he is owner in joint possession of one residential house built on 10 marlas of land, detail and description whereof has also been given in the plaint. The Regular Second Appeal No. 366 of 2010 2 appellant/plaintiff has pleaded that Banta Singh son of Sunder Singh was the owner of 73 shares out of the land measuring 22 kanals and he was also the owner of residential house, fully mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Banta Singh died on 7.3.2002 leaving the plaintiff and defendants as his legal representatives, who are governed by Hindu Law. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff has become owner in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal 19½ marlas and joint owner to the extent of 1/8th share in the house as described in the plaint. Upon notice, the defendants caused appearance. Defendants No.1, 4, 6 and 7 raised a plea in the written statement that Banta Singh had executed a valid registered Will dated 26.11.1987 in favour of defendant No.4-Nachhatar Singh and therefore, rights of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property no longer survive. It was further stated that an application, filed by the appellant/plaintiff for correction of khasra girdawari, was dismissed by the Assistant Collector IInd Class, Jaitu, on 27.1.2006. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial Court had formulated the following issues:- “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for? OPP 2) Relief”. Subsequently, another issue was formulated as Issue No.1A and the same reads as under:- “1A) Whether deceased Banta Singh executed a registered Will in favour of defendant No.4 on 26.11.1987? OPD Regular Second Appeal No. 366 of 2010 3 The trial Court has held that by producing the original Will from the records, maintained by the office of Sub Registrar, through DW.1 Dharminder Singh, Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and examining the attesting witness DW.2 Nachhatar Singh has been able to prove the Will. The trial Court further held that plaintiff-Mukhtiar Singh himself appeared as PRW.1 in rebuttal evidence and he has not produced any other witness to deny the execution of registered Will in favour of defendant No.4-Nachhatar Singh. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff has failed to challenge the Will in the suit. The finding, qua issue Nos.1 and 1A, have been returned by the trial Court upon proper appreciation of evidence. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, has submitted that the original Will was not produced but only a photocopy of the Will Ex.D1 has been tendered. I have perused the record. DW.4 Dharminder Singh has categorically stated that he has brought the summoned record and in Book No. 67 at page No. 29-32, contain the original Will executed by Banta Singh. Thus, the original Will from the office of Sub Registrar was produced in the Court, duly attested photocopy whereof was retained as Ex.D1. Attesting witness DW.3 Budh Singh, another son of Banta Singh, had also supported the Will. Therefore, the finding returned by both the Courts below suffer from no infirmity as the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to formulate any question of law, much less a substantial one, for consideration of this Regular Second Appeal No. 366 of 2010 4 Court, which may warrant interference in the present appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 16, 2011 “DK”