Rajesh Bindal JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The issue under consideration in the present appeal is regarding genuineness of the Will dated 09.10.1984, which is a registered document, executed by Palaniandi Udyar in favour of Navamani Amma.
2. A suit1 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for declaration and injunction was decreed by the Trial Court2, holding the Will to be genuine. In appeal3 by the Appellants, judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellate Court4. In second appeal5 filed by the Respondent the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored by the High Court6.
3. Before we embark upon to consider the issues in detail, we deem it appropriate to mention the relations between the parties and certain brief facts.
3.1. The testator of the Will dated 09.10.1984, Palaniandi Udayar, was the husband of Appellant No. 1 Thangam and father of Appellant No. 2 Laila.
3.2. The Will was executed on 09.10.1984 in favour of Navamani Amma/Plaintiff, who as per the narration in the Will is said to be daughter of the brother of the testator.
3.3. The Defendant in the suit originally filed was widow of the testator, however, later on his minor daughter was also impleaded. Both are the Appellants before this Court.
3.4. The Appellant No. 1 is the third wife of the testator. The earlier two wives expired and were not having any child from the loins of the testator.
3.5. Even as per the admitted case of the Defendant No. 1/widow of the testator, the testator was having total land about 8 acres besides three houses.
3.6. By way of Will, the testator had bequeathed approximately 3.5 Acres of land in favour of the Plaintiff stating therein that she is like his daughter, being daughter of his brother. The value of the suit property was estimated to be about Rs. 16,000/-.
ARGUMENTS
4. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the argument raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the High Court was that the execution of Will was surrounded by various suspicious circumstances and deserves to be discarded as was rightly done by the First Appellate Court. The finding of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court was erroneously reversed by the High Court without the same being perverse. Re-appreciation of the facts merely to come to another possible conclusion does not fall within the scope of consideration of a matter in second appeal. There was no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal before the High Court. There were discrepancies in the statements of the scribe and the attesting witnesses to the Will. The health of the testator was not good and he was not in a position to understand and comprehend the contents of the Will. There were differences in the thumb impressions of the