In the present case there is an undisputed fact that the testator, late Ram Kishun, passed away on 10.11.2012. Further, according to Clause-C, the petitioner who is the nephew of the deceased was the person who was presenting the will for registration as contemplated under Section 40 and sub-clause-A provided that the will was executed by the testator or donor and the same was proved from the statement of the two witnesses to the said will, i.e., Ram Swaroop and Pahari, both of whom had categorically stated that they had gone to the hospital and had attested the will after hearing the same. He further contended that minor discrepancies in the oral testimony regarding whether any seal of the notary was there or not is immaterial. Sri Singh further contended that the Deputy Registrar should have called for finger print expert report if he had any doubt regarding the thumb impression of late Ram Kishun and the finding recorded by him to the extent that prima facie the thumb impression on the will and on the sale-deed does not match, cannot be accepted as it is only the expert who can form and give opinion and not respondent no.2. He further submits that the finding recorded by respondent no.2 as regards the submission of succession certificate is concerned, it was undisputed fact that late Ram Kishun died issueless as such there was no question of any succession certificate and the petitioner himself was claiming through the said will. He further submitted that the appellate authority was not correct to discard the report of the finger print expert dated 3.2.2016 submitted by the petitioner and should have either got it verified or should have directed for fresh report and merely on the basis that the report was prior to the filing of appeal, the same cannot be relied upon and the appeal was rejected, is totally a perverse finding.
