IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 334 of 1998. Reserved on: 18.11.2008. Decided on: 02.12.2008. Shri Ved Ram. … … Appellant. Versus Shri Devi Ram. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. J.L. Kashyap, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kullu in civil appeal No.62 of 1997 dated 26.5.1998. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) had filed a civil suit for declaration in the Court of learned Senior Sub Jude, Lahul & Spiti at Kullu. The case of the plaintiff was that deceased Ses Ram son of Sablu resident of Ropa, Phati Trangali Kothi Manglore, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. was owner in Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - possession of landed property as per the details given in the plaint. He executed final and last Will of his property in favour of the plaintiff on 11.4.1990. The Sub Registrar refused to register the Will on 12.8.1993. The appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenience sake) got the mutation No.1016 of land of Phati Trangali entered and attested in her favour. The suit was contested by the defendant. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 14.8.1997. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kullu. The appeal was dismissed on 26.5.1998. This regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 26.5.1998. This regular second appeal was admitted on 28.10.1998 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the will Ex.P-1 was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the said circumstances had been explained by the plaintiff so as to entitle him to claim the relief prayed for? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances it was established that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and was entitled to the relief of injunction? Mr. Rajnish K. Lal appearing vice counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the Will in question Ex.P-1 has not been executed in accordance with law. Mr. J.L. Kashyap has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Since both the substantial questions of law are interconnected, they are taken up together for discussion. - 3 - The Will was executed on 11.4.1990. Ses Ram died on 17.3.1991. The plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that he used to maintain and look after Ses Ram. Ses Ram executed the impugned Will in his favour on 11.4.1990. The Will was scribed by PW-2 Shri Bhuvneshwar Dutt. He (PW-2) has deposed that the Will was scribed by him at the instance of Shri Ses Ram in the presence of witnesses Bala Ram and Tule Ram and the contents of the same were read over to him, who after admitting the same to be correct signed the Will in presence of marginal witnesses and thereafter the marginal witnesses also signed the Will in the presence of executant. He was physically and mentally sound at the time of execution of the Will. The Will is entered in his register at serial No.277. PW-3, Bala Ram is one of the marginal witnesses of the Will. He has deposed that Ses Ram executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff in his presence and in the presence of Shri Tule Ram. According to him, the Will was scribed by PW-2 and its contents were read over and explained to the executant Ses Ram, who after admitting the same to be correct put his signatures on the Will Ex.P-1 in their presence and thereafter he and witness Tule Ram signed this Will as marginal witnesses in presence of the executant. He has deposed that the executant was physically and mentally alert and sound at the time of section of the Will. The defendant has appeared as DW-1. She has admitted that the case regarding Will was also filed before Sub Registrar Banjar and ultimately mutation of the land was attested in her favour. It is evident from the statement of DW-1 vide Ex.P-X that she knew about the execution of the Will by her husband in favour of the plaintiff. Ses Ram had died after one year of the execution of the Will. No steps were taken - 4 - either by Ses Ram or by defendant to assail the Will in question. She has further stated that her husband never signed in Urdu script. It is evident from the statement of PW-4, Jit Ram and as per documents Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C that Ses Ram used to sign in Urdu script as well. His signatures were identified by PW-4. The Will has been executed in accordance with law. The circumstance why the wife has been excluded from inheriting the land cannot be the sole ground for determining the validity of the Will. The Will has been scribed by PW-2 and PW-3 is the attesting witness. The defendant throughout knew about the execution of Will as is evident from Ex.P-X. Ses Ram had died on 17.3.1991 and the Will was executed on 11.4.1990. DW-1 has also admitted in cross-examination that the landed property of plaintiff and Ses Ram was joint. The learned courts below have correctly appreciated the facts and have come to right conclusion that the Will Ex.P-1 has been executed in accordance with law. Accordingly, there is no substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 02, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.