L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Appellant has filed this application for placing on record documents Annexure A/1 and A/2. However, in second appeal documents cannot be placed on record like this. No case or prayer for leading additional evidence has been made. The application is completely misconceived. Otherwise also the proposed additional evidence is irrelevant because the same is sought to be produced to depict that Pritam Singh testator used to affix signatures. However, this plea would be discussed in the judgment while disposing the main appeal. The instant application is misconceived and is without any merit and is dismissed. R.S.A. No.284 of 2007

2. This is second appeal by Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh plaintiff No.2, after plaintiffs i.e. appellant and proforma respondent No. 15 Joginder Singh have remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging Will dated 17.6.1997 allegedly executed by their father Pritam Singh in favour of their brother Gurdarshan Singh defendant No. 1. Various other reliefs were also claimed but the central controversy is regarding the aforesaid Will. The plaintiffs also alleged that their father Pritam Singh had earlier executed Will dated 15.3.1997 in favour of his wife Sham Kaur, mother of plaintiffs and defendants No.l and 2.

4. Defendants No.l and 13 contested suit and pleaded that defendant No.l is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of registered Will dated 17.6.1997 executed by Pritam Singh.

5. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2004 dismissed plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No.2 only has preferred the instant second appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7. Defendant No.l in order to prove the Will examined Sanjiv Goyal, scribe of the Will as DW1, Chhaju Singh attesting witness of the Will as DW2, Gursewak Singh Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar as DW4. All of them have proved that the Will was executed by Pritam Singh. Defendant No.l also examined Finger Print Expert Navdeep Gupta DW5. He compared disputed thumb impressions of Pritam Singh on the Will with his standard thumb impressions in the record of the Cooperative Bank and gave report that the disputed thumb impressions are of Pritam Singh.

8. In view of aforesaid evidence, both the courts below have concluded that the Will in question stands fully proved.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Pritam Singh used to affix his signatures on documents as is manifest from sale deeds placed on the records and there is no reason why Pritam Singh who was literate affixed his thumb impressions on the Will instead of signatures and therefore, the Will is suspicious. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sh. Harbans Singh v. Hardayal Singh and others,(1996-2)113 P.L.R. 544 and Single Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Dhan Kaur v. Parkash Singh and others, (2007-2)146 P.L.R 326. In those cases, the testator thumb marked the Will instead of signatures. Will was held to be suspicious but not on this solitary ground. Reliance has also been placed on another judgment in the case Prithi Singh v. Saran Singh, (2006- 3)143 P.L.R. 293. In that case there was right hand thumb impression of male testator instead of affixing left thumb impression. The Will was held to be suspicious.

10. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. The judgments noticed hereinabove are not applicable to the case in hand because there were also other suspicious circumstances surrounding Will in those cases. On the other hand, in the instant case signatures of Pritam Singh appearing on some documents reveal that he was a