The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the Indian Evidence Act, the authenticity added by the registration of the Will, and the acceptance of cultural practices regarding disinheritance.

L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) - Chotti-Plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal, after remaining unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

2. Plaintiff-appellant and defendant Nos.4 to 9 (respondent Nos.13 to 18) are daughters of Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh whereas defendant Nos.1 to 3-Madan Lal, Roshal Lal and Nasib Chand are sons of Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh. Defendant No.1-Madan Lal had since died and is represented by respondent Nos.1 to 10 as his legal representatives whereas defendant Nos.2 and 3 are respondent Nos.11 and 12 herein. The dispute relates to inheritance of the suit land left by Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that all the sons and daughters of Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh i.e. both the parties inherited the suit land in equal shares i.e 1/10th share each. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3, who claimed themselves to be exclusive owners of the suit land, from alienating the same without getting it partitioned.

3. Defendants No.1 to 3 set up registered Will dated 01.01.1985 executed by Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, they claimed to be exclusive owners in possession of the suit land. However, relationship between the parties was admitted. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 to 9 admitted the claim of the plaintiff whereas defendant No.6 was proceeded ex parte.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2008 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 07.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

6. In order to prove Will dated 01.01.1985, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have examined Gurdial Singh Ex-panch DW-2 one of the two attesting witnesses of the Will. He has stated according to version of contesting defendants about the due execution of the Will by Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh. Nasib Chand-defendant No.3 also appeared as DW-1 and supported his own version.

7. The aforesaid evidence of the contesting defendants stands unrebutted. The said evidence is cogent and reliable and has not been shaken or impeached in any manner. Requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, has also been complied with by examining one attesting witness of the Will. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that second attesting witness of the Will has not been examined. However, contesting defendants were not required to examine both attesting witnesses of the Will. On the contrary, the plaintiff-appellant herself also could examine the other attesting witness if the plaintiff thought that the other attesting witnesses would not support the execution of the Will. Consequently, no adverse inference can be drawn against the contesting defendants for not examining the other attesting witnesses of the Will.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Will purports to have been thumb marked by the testator Harchand Mal alias Harchand Singh, although he used to run a shop and used to maintain account books and, therefore, in ordinary course, he should have signed the Will. However, the Will cannot be discarded merely on this ground because the testator might have thought it prudent to affix his thumb impressions on the Will so that there remains no dispute about the authenticity of the Will. Comparison of signature of a person by expert may be disputed because science of comparison of handwriting or signature is not perfect science. However science of comparison of finger print is perfect science and, therefore, the thumb impression can be proved to be of a particular person by authentic evidence of finger print expert. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to depict that