R. S. A. No. 2375 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2375 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 29, 2010 Shiv Lal .... Appellant Vs. Manphul Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by Shiv Lal plaintiff, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. The dispute is regarding half share of Het Ram in land measuring 09 kanals 07 marlas, the remaining half share apparently being owned by plaintiff's father Tula Ram. Het Ram was brother of Tula Ram. Plaintiff's case is that Het Ram died unmarried and issueless and therefore, proforma defendants no.4 and 5, being daughter and son respectively of brother of Het Ram, inherited the land of Het Ram, along with plaintiff. Version of defendants no.1 to 3, however, is that defendant no.3 Shanti is widow of Het Ram and therefore, she inherited the land of Het Ram and defendant no.3 sold the land of Het Ram to defendant no.1, R. S. A. No. 2375 of 2008 2 who is bona fide purchaser of the same. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh, vide judgment and decree dated 09.09.2004, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there is no evidence with reference to conduct, as required by Section 50 of the Evidence Act, to prove that defendant no. 3 is wife of Het Ram. The contention cannot be accepted because DW-2 Kishan Lal and DW-3 Norang had proved the said relationship by conduct as well as by deposing that they had attended the marriage of Shanti with Het Ram. Shanti herself appeared in the witness box as DW-4 and deposed about her marriage with Het Ram. Babu Lal DW-6 and Duli Chand DW-7 also corroborated the same. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are contradictions in the statements of defence witnesses. However, this argument does not help the appellant because marriage of Shanti with Het Ram took place more than 50-60 years ago and therefore, some contradictions in the statements of witnesses would not be sufficient to disbelieve them. It may be added that Shanti is none else but real sister of plaintiff's own mother Dhan Kaur. It appears that both the sisters Dhan Kaur and Shanti were married with two brothers i.e. Tula Ram and Het Ram. There is also reliable documentary evidence to prove that Shanti is widow of Het Ram. There are electoral rolls for the years 1976 (Ex.D-9) and 1980 (Ex.D-7) depicting Shanti to be wife of Het Ram. These electoral rolls were prepared long before the death of Het Ram in the year 1991. Even thereafter, in the electoral rolls for the year 1998 (Ex.D-8), Shanti was recorded to be wife of Het Ram. There is also ration card (Ex.D- R. S. A. No. 2375 of 2008 3 2) and voter identity card (Ex.D-3) depicting that Shanti is wife of Het Ram. There is thus sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove that Shanti is wife of Het Ram and therefore, Shanti alone inherited the land of Het Ram. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in voters' list of Het Ram, Shanti has not been listed as voter with him. However, this does not prove that Shanti could not be wife of Het Ram. On the other hand, it is the case of contesting defendants that after some years of their marriage, Shanti and Het Ram were not residing together. In fact, Het Ram had joined police service. Consequently, omission of the name of Shanti in voters' list with Het Ram would not be sufficient to infer that Shanti is not wife of Het Ram. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence oral as well as documentary to prove that Shanti is widow of Het Ram. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have arrived at concurrent finding that Shanti is proved to be wife of Het Ram. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in Regular Second Appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 29, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE