JUDGMENT R.K. Palli. J. (Oral) :- This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment of reversal The parties, hereinafter in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiff and ‘defendants. 2. The plaintiff claims inheritance of the suit property which belonged f to her father Bhag Singh as his sole heir. Challenge has been made to the mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant-No. l, Dilbagh Singh, on the basis of a ‘Will relied upon by him having been executed by Bhag Singh in his I favour. The Will is challenged as fictitious and invalid. 3. The defendants, while laying contest to the suit, have filed separate written statements and the ‘Will executed by Bhag Singh is said to have been wildly executed. 4. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on by the parties, came to record the conclusion that the ‘Will’ Ext. DW-2/A, executed by Bhag Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 is not a result of free volition of the testator and deserves to be rejected. In absence of the ‘Will’ the plaintiff has been granted a decree to succeed to die estate of her deceased father, as per natural succession and she has also been granted consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her rights of enjoyments over the suit property. The suit was consequently, ordered to be decreed, as prayed for by the plaintiff. 5. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree by filing an appeal which came to be heard and allowed by the learned first appellate Court vide impugned judgment. As a sequence of the impugned judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Mr Snjeev Kuthiala contends that the learned first appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. It is further sought to be contended that the plaintiff has successfully established on record that the ‘Will in favour of the defendants is forged and fabricated one and there \v as no reason to deprive the plaintiff, who is the only daughter and child of Bhag Singh deceased. Learned Counsel further contends that the witnesses as well as the scribe belonged to different places and no respectable person from the village was associated in the execution of the Will1’. 7. Learned Counsel further contends that the witnesses as well as the scribe belonged to different places and no respectable person from the village was associated in the execution of the Will1’. 7. Learned Counsel further proceeds to contend that Bhag Singh was bed-ridden for over 3 to 4Months and had arrived in the village and died three days after. The Will is said to be executed on June 13, 1986 and the testator died on June 16, 1986. The Will is, thus, said to be result of undue influence of defendant No. 1 and further that the testator was not in sound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants in reply, besides adopting the reasoning given by the learned first appellate. Court in the impugned judgment contends that there was no legal bar for getting the services of a scribe, who was incidentally happened to be there in the village on the date the Will was executed, although he belonged to a different place. Learned Counsel has further laid stress on the fact that there was nothing inconsistent in the statements of the witnesses examined by the defendants to prove due execution of the Will and there was nothing wrong on the part of Bhag Singh to have given away his property to his elder brother Dilbagh Singh, defendant No. l as the plaintiff had already been married and Diibagh Singh had spent a lot of money on that occasion to give suitable dowry to her. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, on careful examination of the impugned judgment and the record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. The admitted position as it emerges out from the reading of the record is that Bhag Singh deceased was living away from the village in Hissar where, he was in the employment in a factory. It is further an admitted position that the plaintiff was residing with her father and the mother of the plaintiff had already died when she was just a child. It has further come in evidence that the relations between Bhag Singh and Dilbagh Singh were not very cordial. It is further an admitted position that the plaintiff was residing with her father and the mother of the plaintiff had already died when she was just a child. It has further come in evidence that the relations between Bhag Singh and Dilbagh Singh were not very cordial. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed by Bhag Singh only one year before his death and admittedly he was keeping in- different health ever since thereafter and was completely bed-ridden for 3 to 4 months prior to his death. Defendant No. l himself has admitted this position in his statement as DW-I. The plaintiff had also availed the services of one Ram Sahai and his wife to look after the plaintiff at Hissar. 11. Admittedly, Bhag Singh came to the village on June 13, 1986 in connection with the wedding of the son of one Karam Chand. The scribe had also come to attend that wedding, but the Barat had already left when he reached and he attended the reception after the return of the marriage party. It is during his stay in the village that the Will allegedly came to be made by Bhag Singh on June 13, 1986. It is really surprisingly as to what was the immediate necessity for the purposes of execution of the Will on the very first day of the arrival of Bhag Singh in the village. His daughter was, admittedly, not with him. It has come in evidence that his son-in-law had come with him, but had left when the Will came to be made. There is further variations in the statements of the scribe, Sher Singh examined as PW-2 and the marginal witness, Hans Raj examined as DW-3. According to Sher Singh the ‘Will’ was written in the Verandah’ of the house of Karam Chand. Dilbagh Singh though said to be in the-house but was not present at the sight when the ‘Will’ was being executed- As per Hans Raj the Will was executed in the ‘Varandah’ of Dilbagh Singh. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants has pointed out from the evidence that the houses of Karam Chand and Dilbagh Singh adjoin each other and this discrepancy is not material. 12. Dilbagh Singh, defendant No. l, in his statement had stated that the Will was executed in the court-yard of his house. Scribe, Sher Singh, admittedly, never knew Bhag Singh earlier. 12. Dilbagh Singh, defendant No. l, in his statement had stated that the Will was executed in the court-yard of his house. Scribe, Sher Singh, admittedly, never knew Bhag Singh earlier. Both the witnesses belonged to different village which is quite at a distance. 13. The possibility cannot be ruled out that defendant No. l, Dilbagh Singh, might have thought in his wisdom that it was a just and proper occasion to get a Will executed in his favour by unduly influencing Bhag Singh. 14. Though it is said from the side of the defendants that Dilbagh Singh spent sufficient money on the wedding of the plaintiff and had also raised loan from the bank for that purpose, yet there is no material placed on record to that effect and as such no reliance can be placed on his sole testimony. 15. There was no occasion to deprive the plaintiff, who was the only child and daughter of the deceased. She was residing -with him and serving him all through his life and was married just a year before the death of her father. It has come on record that the deceased whenever was in need of money, he used to write letters to his son-in-law to meet his demand. These letters have not been denied and have been placed on record as Exts.PW-2/A PW-2/C- Jaswant Singh has himself appeared as PW-4. He is the husband of the plaintiff and son-in-law of Bhag Singh deceased. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the relations between Bhag Singh and defendant No. 1, Dilbagh Singh were cordial. It has also not been brought on record that defendants rendered any services to deceased Bhag Singh, when he was ill and remained in bed for about 3-4 months prior to his death. Khushi Ram is another marginal witness of the Will’. According to the statement made by Sher Singh, as DW-2, he had come to attend the wedding of the son of Karam Chand. He is totally ignorant as to where the marriage party had gone. He, thus, happened to appear on the scene just by chance. 16. Hans Raj, while appearing as DW-3, has admitted in his cross-examination that defendant Dilbagh Singh is his fathers sisters husband, that is, “Phoofa". He has also Bartandari rights with Dilbagh Singh, defendant. How he has appeared on the scene, is also a mystery. He, thus, happened to appear on the scene just by chance. 16. Hans Raj, while appearing as DW-3, has admitted in his cross-examination that defendant Dilbagh Singh is his fathers sisters husband, that is, “Phoofa". He has also Bartandari rights with Dilbagh Singh, defendant. How he has appeared on the scene, is also a mystery. He has admitted that Bhag Singh was suffering from illness and remained on bed for about 3-4 months prior to his death. 17. Bhag Singh, admittedly, had left the village and was living in Hissar for over 17 years and the plaintiff remained with him throughout. It has come on record that he had lot of love for his daughter, that is, the plaintiff, as to bring her up he had engaged the services of a person and his wife at Hissar. He also did not marry any other woman, after the death of plaintiffs mother. In natural course of events no father in that situation would deprive his only child for whom-he had taken-lot of care to bring her up and who remained with him ail throughout serving him till his last. 18. There is another doubtful circumstance in respect of the execution of the Will. Bhag Singh died on the third day of his reaching the village. The possibility of his exercising undue influence by Dilbagh Singh, defendant No: 1 on Bhag Sinngh is not ruled out. 19. There is no independent piece of evidence on record to show that Bhag Singh was in sound state of mind at the time of the execution of the. Will. 20. Dilbagh Singh initially admits his presence in the house at the time of execution of the "Will as well as the fact that the son-in-law of Bhag Singh had accompanied him when he had come from Hissar, in the later part if his statement h; had admitted that they had come together and he was present with him. There is further an admission on his part to the effect that Bhag Singh died after his son-in-law had left the house. 21. There is further an admission on his part to the effect that Bhag Singh died after his son-in-law had left the house. 21. It can also not be ruled out that defendant No. l, Dilbagh Singh, had played an important and prominent role in the execution of the Will, procuring the scribe and the witnesses from the distant places, who also happened to his relations, goes a long way to created suspicious circumstance about the due execution of the Will and the role of defendant Dilbagh Singh in its execution. Interestingly, Hans Raj and Khushi Ram had also come to attend the wedding. 22. There is evidence to the effect that there is a document writer and patwari living in the village. Service of any one of them could have been availed of for the due and proper execution of the Will. The Will in question, in my considered opinion, has been wrongly accepted by the learned first appellate Court The impugned judgment manifestly suffers from misreading and mis-interpretation of the evidence on record and deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is ordered to be set aside and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, no order as to costs. -