M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff -appellant's appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, dated 26.3.1979. The learned Additional District Judge, partially reversed the findings returned by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.9.1976.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant Hazura Singh filed a suit on 13.10.1971 for possession in respect of land measuring 55 kanals 19 marlas situated at village Kanak Wal Chehlan. The case set up before the courts below is that one Gangan Singh was owner in possession of the suit land who died on 12.9.1966. Surmukh Singh father of Amar Singh (Respondent No. 1) died during the life time of Gangan Singh. The appellant set up a Will alleged to have been executed on 10.9.1966 by Gangan Singh. The plaintiff Appellants produced pedigree table which reads as under: Dhiana | - | | Karam Singh Dial Singh | Methi Singh - | | | Surmukh Singh Gajjan Singh | | - -| - - Gangan Amar Singh Hazura Daughters Singh (defendant) Singh of defendants (deceased No.3 whose estate is in dispute) Tej Kaur Contesting defendant No.2 (alleged widow) The appellant made further averment that Tej Kaur, Respondent No. 1, claimed herself to be the widow of Gangan Singh and took forcible possession of the land without any right. It was alleged that Tej Kaur was not the widow of Gangan Singh and she was never married to him and infact she was wife of one Ram Singh son of Hira Singh and had given birth to 5/6 children from the loins of Ram Singh. Tej Kaur, respondent No. 1, alone contested the suit and the Court proceeded exparte against rest of the respondents. She strongly denied the validity of any will in favour of the appellant -plaintiff. It was further alleged that Gangan Singh would make a huge difference because the Will is alleged to be executed on 10.9.1966. She also strongly controverted the averment of the appellant -plaintiff that he is the legal heir of Gangan Singh deceased.
(3.) BOTH the Courts below returned a firm finding of fact that the Will could not have been executed on 10.9.1966 when the Testator himself had died on 9.9.1966. The learned Additional District Judge while affirming the finding of the trial Court categorically concluded that from the evidence on record it would be safe to come to the finding that the propounder of the Will was unable to explain the suspicious circumstances appearing in the evidence to the satisfaction of the Court and the finding of the trial Court was fully justified to discard the Wil. Even before me, the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Tribhuvan Singla has not assailed the finding of the courts below on this issue. Moreover, in my considered opinion, no question of law with regard to discarding of Will could be framed warranting any interference by this Court on this issue in the second appeal.;