IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 127 RSA-2295-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:09.07.2025 Sarbjit Kaur …..Appellant Vs. Raminder Kaur and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Abhimanyu Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Plain!ff of the case (now appellant through his LR) in this Regular Second Appeal against the reversal, inasmuch as suit for declara!on filed by the plain!ff, was though decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.08.2017 but the appeal filed by one of the defendants Raminder Kaur (now respondent No.1 through her LRs) was accepted by the first Appellate Court on 12.03.2025, thus denying the relief sought by the plain!ff- appellant. 2. Heard. 3. Sardara Singh was the owner of the property in dispute, who expired on 28.08.1994. He had two sons namely Joginder Singh (plain!ff) and Bhajan Singh and one daughter namely Raminder Kaur (defendant No.1). Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Bhajan Singh. Plain!ff laid claim to the suit property on the basis of a Will dated 29.07.1981 to the extent of 2/3rd share in agricultural land and ¾th share in the disputed house by contending that Bhajan Singh i.e. predecessor of defendants Nos.2 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2295-2025 (O&M) -2- to 5 got 1/3th share in the agricultural land and ¼th share in the disputed house; whereas, defendant No.1 i.e. daughter was disinherited. 4. The case of the defendant No.1 was based upon natural succession, by denying the execu!on of any Will by Sardara Singh. According to her, Sardara Singh had died intestate. Even the other defendant Nos.2 to 5 also denied the execu!on of the Will. 5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par!es was taken on record. Trial Court held that Will dated 29.07.1981 propounded by the plain!ff was duly proved and as such, decreed the suit. However Appellate Court reversed the said finding by holding that Will was not proved in accordance with law. 6. Assailing the aforesaid reversal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspec!ve, inasmuch as the signature of the testator Sardara Singh on the Will were duly proved by the tes!mony of PW-4 Anil Kumar Gupta, handwri!ng and fingerprint expert. S!ll further, it is contended that even the signature of Kishan Chand Gupta, the scribe to the Will were proved by his nephew Sudhir Gupta (PW-3). Learned counsel submits that both the aCes!ng witnesses namely Harbans Singh and Krishan Gopal have expired, so Will in ques!on was proved in view of the fact that signature of testator as well as scribe of the Will were duly proved. 7. This Court does not find merit in the aforesaid conten!on. Sec!on 69 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:- “69. Proof where no a<es=ng witness found.––If no such aCes!ng witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the aCesta!on of one aCes!ng witness at least is in his handwri!ng, and that the signature of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2295-2025 (O&M) -3- person execu!ng the document is in the hand wri!ng of that person.” 8. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that in case both the aCes!ng witnesses to the Will have died, then Will must be proved by proving: (i) Signature of the testator (ii) ACesta!on of at least one of the aCes!ng witnesses. 9. In the present case, though plain!ff produced the evidence to prove the signature of the testator but failed to bring on record any evidence to prove aCesta!on of any of the aCes!ng witness to the Will. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned first Appellate Court rightly held that Will was not proved in accordance with law. 11. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia!on of legal as well as factual posi!on. Dismissed. All the miscellaneous applica!on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 09, 2025 Nee!ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document