IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3803 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.3.2010 Gulzara Singh ....Appellant Versus Balram Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 26.4.2005 by which the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were reversed. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 has claimed the property of one Ujagar Singh on the basis of a registered Will dated 29.12.1997. He also claims the estate of Ujaggar Singh again on the basis of an unregistered Will. The learned trial Court while appraising the material on record to establish the veracity of the Wills concluded that both the Wills were fictitious and discarded the same. The plaintiff- respondent No.1 thereafter filed an appeal in which the findings of the learned trial court were reversed. The appellant who had also filed a R.S.A.No.3803 of 2005 (O&M) -2- counter claim to the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in which adverse findings were recorded against him did not make any challenge to the same. The first Appellate Court concluded on the basis of evidence before it that the Will dated 29.12.1997 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was a valid Will. To support its reasoning it had observed that deceased Ujagar Singh was residing with the plaintiff- respondent and other family members which was reflected from the voter-list card and he was also having a joint bank account with the plaintiff-respondent. The scribe of the Will was also examined and so were the attesting witnesses who consistently deposed regarding the execution of the Will at the instance of Ujagar Singh. The Will was proved in accordance with law. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff/respondent was not related to the deceased whereas he was in some proximity of the relation of the deceased and consequently this itself should have been a suspicious circumstance to be taken against the Will. It was contended that since the appellants was a relation of deceased, there should have been some mention in the Will as to why he has been omitted in the line of succession. It was further contended that the Will itself is shrouded by suspicious circumstances as it was set up and registered just about a year and half from the death of the deceased and immediately after the execution of the Will he was admitted to the hospital leading to a possibility of the plaintiff-respondent abusing his proximity to the deceased to get a Will executed in his favour. R.S.A.No.3803 of 2005 (O&M) -3- I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the impugned judgment. In the considered opinion of this Court it is not essential that a Will necessarily has to be in favour of a relation. A Will is always an expression of the desires of the testator and it is his wish which he expresses by the terms of the Will to bequeath a property in favour of any person whom he so chooses. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was living with the plaintiff-respondent during his life time and also there is material on record to show that he was hospitalised in January 1998 and operated upon. The Will is of the year 1997. Because of these factors a direct inference can be derived by the first Appellate Court that the Will was rightly executed by the testator to part with his property on account of the fact that the deceased was living with the plaintiff-respondent and he was also taken care of by him. There is also material on record to show that the plaintiff-respondent had contributed to the treatment of the deceased as well. As against this, the appellant has set up a an unregistered Will dated 24.1.1998 executed during the very same period when the deceased was hospitalised casting a suspicion over it. In any eventuality he has not made a challenge to the finding that this Will of 1997 is a forged and fabricated one. The Supreme Court in Rur Singh (Dead) through LRs. and others v. Bachan Kaur, (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 1 held that determination of the validity of a Will is a question of fact and not a question of law and therefore the same cannot be gone into in a Regular Second Appeal. R.S.A.No.3803 of 2005 (O&M) -4- Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss