RSA No.4222 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4222 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 19, 2009 Naib Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Satish Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Budhwar, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the appellants whereby they had claimed that the sale of 4 Marlas of land by their father did not affect their rights in the property of their father(which had been transferred to them by way of a collusive decree). Both the courts found that their father had the right to sell the land and that the appellants were not competent to challenge the same. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether both the learned courts are justified in saying that the share of Harphool Singh is 114 Kanals 19 Marlas when it is proved on record that his share is 113 Kanal 6 Marlas vide Ex.D-11, Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3? ii)Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.03.2007 and 20.08.2009 are perverse and misreading and RSA No.4222 of 2009 2 misconstruing the pleading and evidence etc.? iii)Whether the sale deed dated 17.10.1997 is binding on the rights of the plaintiff/appellants? iv)Whether the learned Courts below have not considered the matter in right perspective? The main question is question No. (i). Questions No.(ii) and (iv) are also offshoots of the said question. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy me that the findings of fact regarding the holding of Harphool Singh are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once questions No. (i),(ii) and (iv) are decided against the appellant, question No. (iii) does not arise. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 19, 2009 sunita