Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 648 (PNJ)

Bawa Singh v. Haqiqat Singh

2005-05-26

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The Regular Second Appeal by defendant No. l is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.1979 passed by the Sub Judge, IInd Class, Samrala whereby the suit for declaration filed by respondents No. l and 2 against the appellant and respondents No. 3 to 6 was decreed and was affirmed on appeal vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. 2. The dispute herein pertains to the land measuring 15 kanals 9 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Otala, Tehsil Samrala and the bone of contention in this appeal is the Will dated 22.9.1973 (Ex.Pl) allegedly executed by one Joginder Singh son of Phuman Singh who had been adopted by Jarnail Singh r/o Otalan. The facts necessary to understand the controversy are as under:- 3. One Phuman Singh had five sons, namely, Joginder Singh, Arjan Singh, Balwant Singh. Ajaib Singh and Nahar Singh. Nahar Singh had pre-deceased Phuman Singh and had left behind his sons Gajjan Singh. Respondent No. l and 2 are the sons of Balwant Singh respondent No. 4 Joginder Singh one of the sons of Phuman Singh was adopted by Jaimal Singh and on the death of the latter, his land was inherited in equal shares by his adopted son Joginder Singh and Bachan Singh. The appellant is the son of Bachan Singh, Joginder Singh thus, after inheritance became owner of land measuring 15 kanals 9 marlas as described in the head note of the plaint. Joginder Singh had pre-deceased his natural father Phuman Singh. Plaintiff-respondents No. l and 2 filed a suit for declaration asserting that their uncle Joginder Singh had executed a Will on 22.9.1973 (Ex.PI) in their favour and on the death of Joginder Singh, they became owners of the said land. The plaintiffs further claimed that mutation No. 2981 dated 29.4.1975 sanctioned in favour of the appellant was illegal. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. The appellant-defendant No. 1 and respondents No. 3 to 6 i.e. defendants No. 2 to 5 filed their separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was admitted that Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Jaimal Singh and was thus owner of the suit land. It was denied that Joginder Singh had executed any Will in favour of plaintiff-respondents No. l and 2. In the written statement filed by the appellant, it was admitted that Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Jaimal Singh and was thus owner of the suit land. It was denied that Joginder Singh had executed any Will in favour of plaintiff-respondents No. l and 2. It was claimed that the Will in question .was a forged and fictitious document and was, therefore, ineffective and inoperative against the rights of succession of the appellant to the estate left by Joginder Singh deceased. It was further asserted that Joginder Singh had died intestate and according to Hindu Succession Act by which the parties are governed, the appellant alone was the heir to the estate left by Joginder Singh. It was also asserted that mutation dated 29.4.1975 was rightly sanctioned in favour of the appellant. Lastly, it was alleged that even the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Samrala whereby the aforesaid mutation had been sanctioned, was dismissed by the Collector on 17.3.1976. It was admitted that Joginder Singh had got the land in dispute from his adoptive father Jaimal Singh. 5. Respondents No. 3 to 6 in their written statement admitted that Joginder Singh was the owner of the suit land. It was, however, categorically denied that Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Jaimal Singh. The execution of the Will in question as claimed by the plaintiff-respondents No. l and 2 was admitted. The factum of Joginder Singh having died on 30.9.1973 and the plaintiffs being in possession of the suit land was admitted. It was categorically asserted that the mutation aforesaid had been wrongly sanctioned in favour of the appellant. It was clarified that after the death of Joginder Singh, Phuman Singh became his legal heir and after the death of the latter, respondent No. 3 to 6 being the legal heirs of Phuman Singh succeeded to the land in dispute. 6. The aforesaid rival contentions between the parties gave rise to the following is-sues:- "1. Whether Joginder Singh (deceased) had executed a valid Will dated 22.9.1973, in favour of the plaintiffs. If so, its terms and effect? OPP 2. What is the effect of admission of Joginder Singh in the Will to the effect that he was the admitted adopted son of Jaimal Singh? OP Parties 3. Whether or not Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Jaimal Singh? If so, its terms and effect? OPP 2. What is the effect of admission of Joginder Singh in the Will to the effect that he was the admitted adopted son of Jaimal Singh? OP Parties 3. Whether or not Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Jaimal Singh? OP Parties. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP . 5. Relief." 7. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in respect of their respective claims. The learned trial Court under issue No. l held that Joginder Singh deceased executed the Will dated 22.9.1973 (Ex.P.l) in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and 2. Under issues No. 2 and 3, it was found that Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Jaimal Singh. Issue No. 4 was answered in favour of plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2 holding that since they were in possession of the suit land, they became owners of the same on the basis of Will dated 22.9.1973 (Ex.P.l) and were thus entitled for declaration as prayed for. Resultantly, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appeal carried by Awa Singh defendant-appellant before the Appellant Court met with failure and was consequently dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.1982. 8. Mr. G.S. Punia, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Will Ex.P.l is surrounded by following suspicious circumstances: a) Joginder Singh was admitted in Hospital on 21.9.1973 and was suffering from Malaria and was taken as an indoor patient for treatment thereof. It was on 22.9.1973 that the Will is said to have been executed and it could not be said to have been executed in sound disposing mind. b) Joginder Singh was admitted in Civil Hospital, Samrala for his treatment and medicine was taken from Dr. Sharma in the village. On third day, doctors at Samrala told that Joginder Singh be taken to Chandigarh and when he was taken from Samrala to Chandigarh, he is said to have executed the alleged Will when he was not well and in sound disposing mind. For this he relied upon statement and cross-examination of Haqiqat Singh PW-8 and DW-3 Hardhir Singh. Record keeper, Civil Hospital, Samrala. For this he relied upon statement and cross-examination of Haqiqat Singh PW-8 and DW-3 Hardhir Singh. Record keeper, Civil Hospital, Samrala. c) That though the Will was executed on 22.9.1973 but it no where mentions the executant was admitted as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital, Samrala on the date of execution of the Will. d) That Niranjan Singh PW2, Om Parkash PW3 being marginal witnesses and PW4 Surinder Pal Singh being Deed Writer, all are silent about Joginder Singh being indoor patient on 22.9.1973. There testimonies could not be relied upon as all of them have stated that Joginder Singh was alright and hale and hearty on the said date. The counsel referred to the following circumstances in support of his submissions:- (i) Niranjan Singh PW2 attesting witness stated that the deceased came to Bakhshish Singhs workshop from Khanna Road Chowk where he was already there. He further states that the deceased met him in the village on 23.9.1973 at about 4/5 P.M. at the shop of the plaintiff-respondents and the deceased was at the time quite alright. (ii) That Om Parkash PW3 was working as a Clerk to Shri Hari Gopal, Advocate counsel for the plaintiffs and stated that Joginder Singh deceased had come to him on foot while hale and hearty and the deceased did not tell him about being admitted in the hospital. (iii) PW4 Surinder Paul stated that the deceased told him that he had come from his village for executing the Will. e) Shri G.S. Mann, Advocate (PW7) stated that sale deed Ex.P2 was witnessed by Joginder Singh in his presence and he was an old man of about 60 years and he did not know Joginder Singh personally and therefore Joginder Singh cannot be said to be a marginal witness of sale deed Ex.P2 and the comparison of two thumb impression is of no use. f) Ex.Dl a certificate issued by the Medical Officer to the effect that Joginder Singh son of Phuman Singh remained as indoor patient from 21.9.1973 to 23.9.1973 with diagnosis of Malaria and was referred to C.M.C. Brown Hospital, Ludhiana on 23.9.1973 as he was not improving rules out the possibility of the deceased himself getting the Will scribed and executed in sound disposing mind. g) Respondent No. 3 who has taken, the deceased from Samrala to Chandigarh for treatment is silent about the Will and has also filed a suit for disputed property on the basis of succession. h) The possibility of thumb impression of the deceased having been obtained through some suspicious means from the Hospital on 22.9.1973 cannot be ruled out. i) That the propounder of the will has failed to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will. All the witnesses denied about the illness of the deceased and they stated that the deceased was hale and hearty. 9. The plaintiff-propounder of the Will according to the learned counsel has failed to discharge the onus placed on them to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and, therefore, the Will Ex.Pl could not be-taken as a legal and valid document. He relied upon Kalyan Singh V/s. Smt. Chhoti and Ors, , Smt. Jaswant Kaur V/s. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Ors., , Gurdial Kaur and Ors. V/s. Kartar Kaur and Ors., , Smt. Indu Bala Base and Ors. V/s. Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr., and H. Venkatachala lyengar V/s. B.N. Thimmajamma, , in support of his contention. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the findings of the Courts below are vitiated due to perversity of reasoning and, therefore, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code"), the same can be interfered by this Court. He relied upon Shri Hafazat Hussain V/s. Abdul Majeed and Ors., , Kulwant Kaur and Ors. V/s. Gurdial Singh Mann (dead) by LRs and Ors., , Ishwar Dass Jain (Dead) through LRs V/s. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs., and Jai Singh V/s. Shakuntala, to buttress his submissions. 11. According to the learned counsel, the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for adjudication by this Court:- "1. Whether the property inherited by adopted, son from adoptive father Will revert back to the heirs in adoptive family on the death of adopted son? 2. Whether adoptive child shall be deemed to be child of his or her adoptive father for all purpose including inheritance? 3. Whether finding of the Courts below is perverse? 4. Whether mere proving the signature or thumb impression of testator-on Will be sufficient to prove the Will? 5. 2. Whether adoptive child shall be deemed to be child of his or her adoptive father for all purpose including inheritance? 3. Whether finding of the Courts below is perverse? 4. Whether mere proving the signature or thumb impression of testator-on Will be sufficient to prove the Will? 5. Whether mechanically proving the execution of the Will is sufficient to dispel suspicious circumstances of the Will? 6. Whether Courts below have failed to notice contradictions in statements of attesting witnesses and scribe of Will with that of the admitted facts? 7. Whether the plaintiffs have failed to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will? 12. Refuting the arguments of Mr. Punia, Mr. Naveender P.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.l and 2 supported the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and submitted that both the Courts below after appreciation of evidence on record have concurrently recorded a finding that Joginder Singh had executed a valid Will dated 22.9.1973 and the same was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. According to the learned counsel, this Court would not interfere in the said finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, under Section 100 of the Code. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has only urged that this court should re-appreciate the evidence and record different conclusion which is not within the domain and scope of the appeal under Section 100 of the Code. On the strength of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V/s. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors., , Smt. Bhagya Wati V/s. General Public and Ors., (1994-2)107 PLR 649 and Deokali (Smt.) V/s. Nand Kishore and Ors., 1996(1) HLR 516. learned counsel argued that there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record. 14. The Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadams case (supra) in paras 3 to 6 has laid down the parameters for exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code as under:- "3. After the amendment a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case. 14. The Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadu Kadams case (supra) in paras 3 to 6 has laid down the parameters for exercising the appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code as under:- "3. After the amendment a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case. The memorandum of appeal must precisely state the substantial question of law involved and the High Court is obliged to satisfy itself regarding the existence of such a question. If satisfied the High Court has to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case. The appeal is required to be heard on the question so formulated. However, the respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal has a right to argue that the case in the court did not involve any substantial question of law. The proviso to the section acknowledges the powers of the High Court to hear the appeal on a substantial point of law, though not formulated by it with the object of ensuring that no injustice is done to the litigant where such a question was not formulated at the time of admission either by mistake or by inadvertence. 4. It has been noticed time and again that without insisting for the statement of such a substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating the same at the time of admission, the High Courts have been issuing notices and generally deciding the second appeals without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has further been found in a number of cases that no efforts are made to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law. In exercise of the powers under this section the findings of fact of the first appellate court are found to have been disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in the section must be strictly fulfilled before a second appeal can be maintained and no court has the power to add to or enlarge those grounds. The second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in the section must be strictly fulfilled before a second appeal can be maintained and no court has the power to add to or enlarge those grounds. The second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. The concurrent findings of facts howsoever erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under this section. The substantial question of law has to be distinguished from a substantial question of fact. This Court in Sir Chunilal V/s. Mehta and Sons Ltd. V/s. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., held that: " The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. 5. It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the Appellate Court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the Lower Appellate Court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the Lower Appellate Court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower Appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. 6. If the question of law termed as a substantial question stands already decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or by the SC, its merely wrong application on the facts of the case would not be termed to be a substantial question of law. Where a point of law has not been pleaded or is found to be arising between the parties in the absence of any factual format a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. The mere appreciation of the facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the document cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. Where the first appellate court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. This court in Reserve Bank of India V/s. Ram Krishna Govind Morey, held that whether the trial Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference." 15. This court in Reserve Bank of India V/s. Ram Krishna Govind Morey, held that whether the trial Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference." 15. The Apex Court in Kondiba Dagadus case (supra) has laid down that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code and in a case where from a given set of circumstances, two inference are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal and adopting of other approach is not permissible. It has been held that the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first Appellate Court unless the High Court finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or were against the settled position of law made by the Apex Court or was based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence. 16. The learned Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, in para 6, had noticed as under:- Leamed counsel for the litigious parties at the very out set of submitting their arguments narrowed down the matter in controversy by agreeing that the vital and material issue which would have clinching effect on the merits of the case is issue No. 1, in as much as it is the Will dated 22.9.1973 alleged to have been executed by Joginder Singh deceased in favour of Haqiqat Singh and Nirmal Singh respondents no. 1 and 2 which was challenged by Bawa Singh defendant-appellant to be forged and fictitious and thus it is this Will which is the pivot round which the case in its entirely would hinge and revolve. Shri Jagdev Singh learned counsel for Bawa Singh appellant, contended that there are some suspicious circumstances which haunt and plague the authenticity and validity of the Will dated 22.9.73 Ex.PI. He in support of his contention highlighted the circumstances of Joginder Singli having been admitted on 21.9.73 in the civil hospital Sarnrala from where he was removed for better treatment under the advice of the doctor on 23.9.73 and he having ultimately been taken to P.G.I., Chandigarh and unfortunately he expired on 3.0.9.73. Mr. He in support of his contention highlighted the circumstances of Joginder Singli having been admitted on 21.9.73 in the civil hospital Sarnrala from where he was removed for better treatment under the advice of the doctor on 23.9.73 and he having ultimately been taken to P.G.I., Chandigarh and unfortunately he expired on 3.0.9.73. Mr. Jagdev Singh in the light of these circumstances sought to make out a case that Joginder Singh in such state of health could not be expected to execute the Will on 22.9.73. He also brought to the fore the circumstances of the entries regarding this Will having been made by Surinder Pal Petition Writer PW4 in his register at the fag end of its page and according to the learned counsel for the appellant such entry was simply maneuvered and manipulated "by the plaintiff-respondent No.l and 2 in collusion and connivance with the petition- writer on 23.9.73. The so called suspicious circumstances heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for Bawa Singh appellant would be found to have been successfully repelled and removed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2 who very correctly brought into sharp focus the testimony furnished by Mr. K.S. Puri. Consulting Document Expert PW1 who submitted his report Ex.P6. Naranjan Singh PW2, resident of Otalan. Om Parkash Municipal Commissioner, PW3 resident of Samrala who signed the Will Ex.PI as its attesting witnesses. Shri S.R. Wadehra learned counsel for plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2 by taking this Court through the sworn statements made by Naranjan Singh PW2 Om Parkash PW3 and Surinder Pal Petition-Writer PW4 very correctly contended that all these witnesses are disinterested and respectable persons who did not have any oblique or ulterior motive to make perjured statements for proving the execution of the Will Ex.PI by Joginder Singh deceased on 22.9.73. Naranjan Singh, resident of Otalan, is a Sarpanch and thus is a respectable person who could not be shown by the opposite side to have any friendship with the plaintiff-respondent No.l or hostility against Bawa Singh appellant. Surinder Pal PW1 who also hails from village Otalan deposed that he personally knew Joginder Singh deceased who got the Will Ex.Pl scribed by him and he in token of having written the said Will Ex.Pl at the instance of Joginder Singh made an entry in this behalf in his register at serial No. 938. Surinder Pal PW1 who also hails from village Otalan deposed that he personally knew Joginder Singh deceased who got the Will Ex.Pl scribed by him and he in token of having written the said Will Ex.Pl at the instance of Joginder Singh made an entry in this behalf in his register at serial No. 938. All of these PWs consistently deposed that Joginder Singh deceased on 22.9.73 when he executed the Will Ex.Pl was in sound disposing state of mind and did not suffer from any physical or mental infirmity which rendered him incapable of thinking and acting rationally. The mere fact of Joginder Singh having been admitted in the Civil Hospital at Samrala on 21.9.73. by having suffered from Malaria could not prevent him from easily moving about and in the case under discussion it is admitted by both sides that the court premises where the Will Ex.Pl was scribed by Surinder Pal, petition writer PW4, at the instance of Joginder Singh deceased is at a very short distance which could be very easily and conveniently covered by Joginder Singh deceased. Bawa Singh appellant has not been able to bring on the record any such medical evidence or the opinion rendered by the doctor incharge Civil Hospital, Samrala, where Joginder Singh remained admitted from 21.9.73 to 23.9.73 as would show Joginder Singh who was suffering from Malaria incapable of getting up from his bed. It is a matter of common experience and knowledge that a person suffering from malaria is generally in a position to move about unless his temperature is so high as would make him incapable of leaving his bed for going out. In the present case there is pathetic paucity of such evidence. As already mentioned and discussed, the evidence tendered by Naranjan Singh PW2, Om Parkash PW3 and Surinder Pal PW4 has been found to be not only cogent and convincing but also unimpeachable and the learned counsel for Bawa Singh appellant has not been able to find any fault with the reliability and truthfulness of the sworn statements made by these PWs. The factum of the execution of the Will dated 22.9.73 Ex.P1 would be found to have been clinched propitious to the plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2 with the authoritative opinion rendered by Sh. The factum of the execution of the Will dated 22.9.73 Ex.P1 would be found to have been clinched propitious to the plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2 with the authoritative opinion rendered by Sh. K.S. Puri PW1 who on comparison of the disputed thumb impression QI on the Will Ex.Pl with the admitted thumb impressions S1 and S2 of Joginder Singh on the sale deed Ex.P2 and incorporated in his report Ex.P6 vide which he found as many as nine points of similarities between the two sets of thumb impressions of Joginder Singh deceased. The trial court rightly concluded on the basis of very sound and convincing reasons given by Sh. K.S. Puri, in his report Ex.P6 that the disputed thumb impression Q1 on the Will Ex.Pl and the specimen standard thumb impressions Sl and S2 on the sale deed Ex.Pl are identical and are of one the same person i.e. Joginder Singh. Sh. Jagdev Singh learned counsel for Bawa Singh appellant on being confronted with the well reasoned report Ex.P6 submitted by Mr. K.S. Puri PW1 was unable to pick any holes in this document which would be found" titled decisively the case in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and sealed the fate of Bawa Singh appellant. The specimen standard thumb impressions Sl and S2 of Joginder Singh deceased on the sale deed Ex.P2 which he thumb marked as an attesting witness would be found to have been proved conclusively and convincingly by Mr. G.S. Maan PW7 Advocate who also signed the sale deed Ex.P2 in the capacity of an attesting witness and thus he would be found to be a competent and knowledgeable person to depose to the genuiness of thumb impressions Sl and S2 having been put Joginder Singh deceased on Ex.P2 as another attesting witness. Thus, Mr. S.R. Wadehra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2 very correctly contended that the execution of the Will dated 22.9.73 Ex.Pl by Joginder Singh deceased has been shown and established beyond all reasonable doubt and this court cannot help being in agreement with him on this aspect of the case set up and proved by the plaintiff-respondents No.l and 2." 17. The circumstances as narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of which the counsel has submitted before this Court to record a different finding from that recorded by both the Courts below merit rejection. The circumstances as narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of which the counsel has submitted before this Court to record a different finding from that recorded by both the Courts below merit rejection. Both the courts below have concurrently held that from the testimonies of Sh. K.S. Puri. Handwriting Expert and of the marginal witnesses and the scribe together with the report Ex.P6, the execution of Will Ex.Pl stood duly proved and also that it does not show that there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. 18. In this case, learned counsel for the appellant has only referred to the evidence on the basis of which he attempted to persuade this Court to arrive at a different conclusion as recorded by the Courts below but has not pointed out any error or misreading of evidence, on the basis of which it could be held that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are unsustainable. 19. No illegality or infirmity could be found in the judgments and decrees of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in this appeal. 20. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.