R. S. A. No.2244 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No.2244 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 19, 2010 Harjit Kaur and others .... Appellants Vs. Jaswinder Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. S. Batth, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by plaintiffs no.1 and 3 to 5 (plaintiff no.2 being proforma respondent no.4 herein), who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below. The dispute relates to the inheritance of Jaswant Singh. Defendant-respondent no.1 Jaswinder Kaur is widow of Sawinder Singh – pre-deceased son of Jaswant Singh. Plaintiffs' case is that after the death of Sawinder Singh, respondent no.1 remarried with Ajit Singh and later on, after deserting him, again married with one Mangat Singh before the death of Jaswant Singh and therefore, respondent no.1, as widow of pre-deceased son of Jaswant Singh, did not inherit any share in the suit land left behind R. S. A. No.2244 of 2010 2 by Jaswant Singh on account of her re-marriage. Defendant no.1 denied having re-married with Ajit Singh or Mangat Singh. Various other pleas were also raised. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiffs have failed to proved alleged re-marriage of respondent no.1 with Ajit Singh or Mangat Singh and therefore, plaintiffs have been non-suited by both the courts below. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that witnesses examined by the plaintiffs have stated that respondent no.1 re-married with Ajit Singh and subsequently, with Mangat Singh, and therefore, finding of the courts below that re-marriage of respondent no.1 is not proved is contrary to evidence. The contention is completely devoid of merit. On pointed inquiry, learned counsel for the appellants could not refer to statement of any witness, who might have witnessed the alleged re-marriage of respondent no.1 with Ajit Singh or Mangat Singh. Thus, there is not even a shred of evidence to proved alleged re-marriage of respondent no.1 with anybody. Consequently, there is no infirmity in concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that plaintiffs have failed to prove the alleged re-marriage of respondent no.1 with anybody. Even otherwise, the said R. S. A. No.2244 of 2010 3 finding is a finding of fact. Lower appellate court is the final court of fact. Consequently, the aforesaid finding cannot be interfered with in second appeal, particularly because the said finding is not shown to be illegal or perverse or based on misreading or misappropriation of evidence. On the contrary, the said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and in fact, no man of ordinary prudence would arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants also could not refer to any provision in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which would disentitle respondent no.1 to inherit share in the property of her father-in-law Jaswant Singh being widow of one of his pre-deceased sons, even on the ground of alleged re-marriage by respondent no.1. For the reasons recorded herein above, it is manifest that plaintiffs along with respondent no.1 inherited the suit land of Jaswant Singh in the manner that plaintiffs no.1 to 3 jointly inherited 1/20th share being widow, son and daughter of Sukhchain Singh – another pre-deceased son of Jaswant Singh, plaintiffs no.4 and 5 inherited 1/20th share each being daughters of Jaswant Singh and respondent no.1 inherited 1/20th share in land measuring 107 kanals 01 marla, in which Jaswant Singh had 1/5th share. In other words, respondent no.1 inherited 1/4th share in the land left by Jaswant Singh and plaintiffs no.4 and 5 also inherited 1/4th share each and plaintiffs no.1 to 3 jointly inherited 1/4th share in the land left by R. S. A. No.2244 of 2010 4 Jaswant Singh. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. July 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE