BALDEV SINGH Vs. SMT. KARTAR KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking leave of this Court for condoning the delay of 130 days in refiling the appeal. The application is supported by affidavit. For the reasons recorded therein, the application is allowed. Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned.

(2.) This regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2006 passed by the Additional district judge, Bathinda dismissing the appeal of the appellant filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phul. Concurrent findings of fact have been returned by both the courts below. Present appellant is a defendant in the suit filed by respondents -plaintiffs, seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession in respect of the suit property. This declaration was on the strength of a will dated 16.10.2000 said to be executed by Pala Singh who was admittedly husband of Kartar Kaur and Sahib Kaur respondents/plaintiffs. One Nachattar Kaur claiming to be the adopted daughter of Pala Singh also joined as a plaintiff in the present suit. She is also the beneficiary under the will dated 16.10.2000. The present appellant who is admittedly a nephew of deceased Pala Singh claims to be in possession of another will dated 26.4.2001 which is later in time. It is not in dispute that both these wills are registered. The validity of both the wills came up for consideration before the courts below. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, both the courts below recorded concurrently that the will claimed by the plaintiffs to be the genuine Will of deceased Pala Singh executed on 25.10.2000 is established and is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. To the contrary, the Will said to be executed by Pala Singh in favour of the appellant on 26.4.2001, though registered, is said to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The trial court has based its finding on variety of factors, including the testimony of DW -1 Rajinder Sharma, Advocate who allegedly scribed the will. The said witness appeared in the court and stated that Pala Singh never came to him for drafting the will nor he put his signatures on the will in his presence. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the courts below are not correct and the reasons for disbelieving the will allegedly executed in favour of the appellant are not based on sound reasoning. I am unable to accept this contention for the simple reason that all questions raised in the memo of appeal relate to appreciation of evidence and none of the questions constitutes a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. There is no scope for this Court to interfere in the findings of fact recorded concurrently by both the courts below in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec. 100 of the C.P.C. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further stated that the findings recorded by the courts below that the will in favour of the appellant has been procured by fraud, are without any material on record and any issue framed in this regard. Even if this part is ignored, there is other material on record to sustain the impugned judgments. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.