R.S.A No. 3819 of 2007 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3819 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : March 09, 2010 Mohinder Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Bahadar Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant seeking a declaration that the defendants/respondents No.1 to 5 have no concern with the suit land and that the sale deeds purportedly executed by him are the result of impersonation and do not affect his ownership rights in the land in dispute. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plea of fraud and impersonation could not be brought home by the appellant and R.S.A No. 3819 of 2007 (O&M) ::2:: consequently dismissed the suit. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are illegal and perverse ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, can it be held that the case of the appellant is time barred ? (iii) Whether the courts below can be said to have properly applied the principles of preponderance of probabilities while rejecting the cogent unimpeachable overwhelming documentary and oral evidence led by the appellant showing his only name as Mohinder Singh and not Chanda Singh ? (iv) Whether the impugned sale deeds are result of fraud and impersonation ?” The only question, which has been argued, is question No. (iii). Counsel for the appellant has argued that in every record (including in school certificates, ration card, voter list), the name of the appellant has been shown as Mohinder Singh and he has never been known as Chanda Singh. He has further argued that at the time of translation of the record from Urdu to Punjabi instead of the word `Mohinder' Singh `Chanda' Singh was written. As per the learned counsel, the defendants took the benefit of this change and got the sale deed executed from some other person. As mentioned above, both the Courts have rejected this plea on the ground that having come to the Court (and that too after more than 20 years), the appellant could not establish the plea of impersonation. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact R.S.A No. 3819 of 2007 (O&M) ::3:: recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Once it is held that the plea of impersonation is not proved, questions No. (i), (ii) and (iv) which are overlapping questions, do not arise. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 09, 2010. JUDGE `kk'