IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 371 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 8, 2011. Ram Avtar. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Subhash Chand Aggarwal and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 20.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jhajjar vide which suit filed by appellant- plaintiff was dismissed. RSA No.371 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff is claiming rights in the property in dispute on the basis of Will dated 31.08.1977 allegedly executed in his favour by Smt. Manbhari. Appellant-plaintiff has also claimed 1/3 share out of 1/2 share of his father in the property in dispute. On notice being issued, plea was taken by respondents- defendants that the properties of Ram Parshand and Manbhari were already partitioned between them vide partition deed dated 24.09.1989, which was duly signed by the present appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant no.1, both real brothers and the same was also attested by the witnesses. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that compromise dated 24.09.1989, Ex.D2 was effected between present appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant no.1, who are real brothers. Present appellant- plaintiff has also signed the said compromise. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar that in view of the fact that compromise has been duly proved, it can be inferred that appellant- plaintiff himself did not accept the Will dated 31.08.1977 as genuine and 2 RSA No.371 of 2011 valid document. Moreover, major portion of the joint property has already been sold by the father of present appellant-plaintiff, Ram Parshad, to different persons who have been held to be bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and sale deeds were also executed by Ram Parshad in their favour and however, none of the sale deeds was challenged by present appellant-appellant during life time of his father. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 8, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3