JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The regular second appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. While assailing the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the present appeal. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit (respondent herein), whereas, the First Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has decreed the suit.

3. The following issues arise for consideration:-

i) If both the attesting witnesses are dead, whether the Will stands proved, if the propounder of the Will duly proves the signatures of one of the attesting witnesses?

ii) If there is no other evidence led by the parties to prove the signatures of the testator on the registered Will, whether the Court, in accordance with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1872 Act') is empowered to compare the signatures of the testator, particularly when a large number of standard/specimen signatures are available on the various documents, authenticity whereof cannot be doubted?

iii) Whether it is necessary to examine the marginal witnesses of a duly registered power of attorney?

4. The detailed facts have been noticed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, however, to complete the narration of facts, some necessary skeleton facts, are being noticed.

5. The dispute is with regard to 50% share in SCO No. 460, Motor Market Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The site was allotted on 10.06.1980 in favour of Sh.Surjeet Singh and Sh.Raghbir Singh (in equal share) by the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra. The plaintiff (the respondent herein) is Sh.Surjeet Singh. Whereas, the private defendants (the appellants herein) are heirs of late Sh.Raghubir Singh, who died on 24.01.1990. Sh.Surjeet Singh, besides himself being the owner to the extent of 50% in above noted showrooms, claims to be the owners of the share of late Sh.Raghubir Singh on the basis of various documents executed by late Sh.Raghubir Singh on 30.08.1980 including an affidavit, special power of attorney, general power of attorney, agreement of transfer of rights and future sale and a registered Will. On the other hand, the defendants claim the property on the basis of natural succession. In other words, the dispute is with regard to estate of late Sh.Raghubir Singh in S.C.O. No. 460.

6. On 06.09.2012, Sh.Surjeet Singh, filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that he is exclusive owner in possession of the aforesaid Shop-cum-Office and the mutation (entry in the official record) in favour of the defendant No.1 to 6 is wrong while issuing directions to the Municipal Corporation to enter the complete property in his name. He also prayed for grant of injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 6 from alienating 50% share of the property in question. The defendant No.1 to 6, while contesting the suit, denied execution of the Will and various other documents by late Sh.Raghubir Singh. The defendant No.7 to 9 also contested the suit on various technical objections. Replications to the different written statements were filed by the plaintiff and the following issues were culled out:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether present suit is hopelessly barred by limitation? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Relief'.

7. In order to prove his case, the plai