IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2714 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 22, 2009 Satbir ....Appellant Versus Rajpati and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by Rajpati-respondent No.1 was allowed by the trial Court and a decree for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the suit property, was passed in her favour and against the defendants. It was also held that the Will, said to have been executed on 29.5.2001 by her brother Ram Avtar, was not a valid document. The defendants were restrained from interfering in her possession over the land in dispute or from alienating the same in any manner, which judgment and decree was upheld in the first appeal filed by the defendant-appellant before the lower Appellate Court and aggrieved of the same, he is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ram Avtar, who was aged 22/23 years at the time of his death was said to have executed Will dated 29.5.2001 in favour of Satbir-defendant. Said Ram Avtar was unmarried. There was no mention any where in the aforementioned Will as to why Ram Avtar excluded his sister from his property and, instead, bequeathed it in favour of his cousin Satbir. It has also come in the evidence of Satbir, who was shown to be the beneficiary under the Will that he was present at the time of execution of the Will. Even the signatures of Ram Avtar, as appearing on the Will, were found to be not tallying with those appearing on the application Ex.P.4, which RSA No. 2714 of 2009 -2- application was submitted by him at the time of taking admission in matriculation in a school at village Chhan. Though the Will was said to have been executed at Barwala, yet, subsequently, an application was made to get it registered at Hissar. The aforementioned suspicious circumstances were taken into consideration by the learned Courts below to hold that the alleged Will dated 29.5.2001 was not a valid document. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier there was civil litigation between Ram Avtar and his sister Rajpati and on account of the same he was fed up from his sister and it was for this reason that he executed the Will in question in favour of his cousin Satbir by excluding his sister Rajpati. Admittedly, the litigation between Ram Avtar and Rajpati had come to an end in the year 1996 pursuant to which each one of them came to own 3 acres of land. From 1996 till the month of May 2001, there was no litigation between them. There was, thus, no valid reason for Ram Avtar to exclude his sister from his inheritance. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The concurrent findings of facts regarding the Will dated 29.5.2001 to be not a valid document, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arises for consideration in the second appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 22, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1