Regular Second Appeal No.3646 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 18 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.3646 of 2010 (O & M ) Ram Rakh ….Appellant Versus Rajesh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.10728-C and 10729-C of 2010. Regular Second Appeal No.3646 of 2010 (O & M ) Civil Misc. No.10728-C of 2010 has been filed praying for condoning the delay of 10 days in filing Regular Second Appeal No.3646 of 2010 and Civil Misc. No.10729-C of 2010 has been filed praying for condoning the delay of 42 days in refilling the said appeal. Both these applications are supported by affidavits. In view of the averments made therein, both these applications are allowed as prayed. Regular Second Appeal No.3646 of 2010 (O)&M). The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal whose suit for declaration that the registered gift deed bearing registration No.708 dated 29.7.2003 executed by defendant No.2 Biram (since deceased) in favour of his (Biram’s) grandson Rajesh (defendant- respondent No.1) in respect of land measuring 8 Kanals was the result of fraud and misrepresentation, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the records of the case, I do not see any merit in this appeal. It is admitted case of the parties that Biram (since deceased) was the exclusive owner of the land measuring 8 Kanals in respect of which he executed registered gift deed bearing registration No.708 dated 29.7.2003 in favour of his grandson Rajesh (defendant- respondent No.1). Plaintiff-appellant is the son of Biram and real paternal uncle of Rajesh (defendant-respondent No.1). Biram was alive on the date when the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff. He appeared before the trial Court and filed duly thumb marked written statement alleging that the property in dispute was his self-acquired property and he, out of his own volition, had executed the impugned Regular Second Appeal No.3646 of 2010 (O & M ) gift deed in favour of his grand son Rajesh. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to show that the property in dispute was the ancestral property in the hands of Biram qua the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed that Biram had executed a registered Will dated 4.7.2002 in respect of the suit property in his (plaintiff’s) favour and that since the Will had not been revoked any subsequent act by Biram did not lead to automatic revocation of the said Will. This claim of the plaintiff has been rightly discarded by both the Courts below. The Will does not confer any right on the beneficiary during the life time of the testator, who has every right to change his mind prior to his death. The Will executed by Biram in favour of the plaintiff could operate after Biram had died. However, in the instant case, as stated above, Biram had filed his written statement in the Court admitting that he had gifted the property to his grand son. Under these circumstances, the Will has rightly been ignored by both the Courts below. In view of the factual position, discussed above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: March 18, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE