R.S.A.No.637 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.637 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.8.2009 Rambhula ...Appellant Versus Dal Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share as heir of Sohan Lal son of Roopa, was dismissed. The plaintiff claims that Sohan Lal son of Roopa died issueless, who had 1/4th share in the suit property. After the death of Sohan Lal, the plaintiff inherits the same, being his nearest heir. The defendant was said to be totally stranger to the family of Sohan Lal son of Roopa. On the other hand, the defendants asserted that the property was of Sohal Lal @ Sohan Pal, which was inherited by them. Initially, the plaintiff filed a suit describing himself to be son of Kare son of Bala, whereas, in the present suit, he has described himself as son of Sohan Pal. The pedigree table propounded by the plaintiff was said to be incorrect and as Sohan Lal @ Sohan Pal was wrongly shown as dead in the pedigree table. R.S.A.No.637 of 2009 2 Sohan Lal son of Roopa was co-owner alongwith his brothers Fauji, Tunda and Bala. The defendants are the sons and daughter of Sohal Lal @ Sohan Pal and entitled to the inherit the estate of the deceased. Both the courts have found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Sohan Lal has died issueless. The pedigree table was not found to be correct as the person, who has prepared the pedigree table was not examined. The argument that Sohan Lal and Sohan Pal are two different persons was also not found to be correct as there is no documentary and oral evidence to this effect. The plaintiff while appearing as a witness, has deposed that Sohan Lal died issueless in the year 1953-54, but the death certificate was not produced. It has been further found that mutation Ex.D-1 has been sanctioned in favour of the defendants as the sons and daughters of the said Sohan Lal. It was also found that earlier suit filed by Hari Om, son of the present appellant, challenging the sale deed executed by the father of the present appellant in favour of Dal Chand and Gian Chand sons of Sohan Pal @ Sohan Lal. The said suit was dismissed on 5.6.2002 Ex.D-2. Thus, the stand of the appellant that Sohan Pal and Sohan Lal are two different persons was found to be no acceptable. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to jamabandi for the year 1975-76 to contend that in the said jamabandi for the first time, Sohan Lal @ Sohan Pal came to the record, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below that Sohan Lal @ Sohan Pal are not two different persons cannot be said to be sustainable. It is also contended that the appellant has moved an application for additional evidence to R.S.A.No.637 of 2009 3 prove the death certificate of Sohan Lal having died on 14.11.1918, but the trial Court has excluded such death certificate in evidence, which is illegal and unwarranted. The stand of the appellant in respect of death of Sohan Lal on 14.11.1918 by way of additional evidence is patently incorrect. The appellant has not produced said certificate during the course of his evidence. As per the statement of the plaintiff, Sohan Lal has died in the year 1953-54, whereas by virtue of the certificate, he has shown to have died in the year 1918. It is unbelievable that there can be such kind of mistake in respect of death of Sohan Lal, when the plaintiff is claiming the estate of Sohan Lal. Mere fact that in the jamabandi for the year 1975-76, Sohan Lal is reflected as @ Sohan Pal is not sufficient to conclude that they are two different persons. The Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to prove that Sohan Lal and Sohan Pal are two different persons. The factum of sale by father of the appellant and challenge to said sale by the son of the appellant shows that Sohan Lal and Sohan Pal are in fact one and the same person. Both the Courts have appreciated the entire evidence to return a concurrent finding of fact that Sohan Lal and Sohan Pal are one and the same person. Such finding is based upon appreciation of evidence. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 20.8.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE