IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) R.S.A. No. 4264 of 2005 (O&M) Smt. Ram Piari. ....... Appellant through Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate with Shri Santosh Sharma and Shri Veneet Soni, Advocates. Versus Sh.Kishana and others. ....... Respondent nos. 3 to 5 through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate with Shri Nitin Jain and Shri Manoj Sharma, Advocates. None for other respondents. (2) R.S.A. No. 4265 of 2005 (O&M) Smt. Ram Piari. ....... Appellant through Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate with Shri Santosh Sharma and Shri Veneet Soni, Advocates. Versus Sh.Mahi Pal and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 & 2 through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate with Shri Nitin Jain and Shri Manoj Sharma, Advocates. None for the other respondents. Date of Decision: 07.01.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? R.S.A.No.4264 of 2005 -2- .... .... Mahesh Grover,J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned two Regular Second Appeals which have been preferred against common judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court') vide which the appeals of the appellant-Ram Piari challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2005 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat (referred to hereinafter as the `the trial Court') rendered in Civil Suit Nos. 26 of 1999 and 131/1 of 2002, were dismissed. Smt.Madia alias Maria and others filed Civil Suit No.26 of 1999 against Ram Piari-appellant and others for declaration and possession of the suit land detailed in the plaint which was the estate of one Ghasi, whereas Civil Suit No.131/1 of 2002 was filed for declaration with a consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction against Kishana, Madia alias Maria etc. in respect of the same property. Both these suits were consolidated by the trial Court and were ordered to be decided together. Ghasi has ½ share in total agricultural land measuring 132 kanals and 17 marlas, which was in dispute. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found that Ram Piari had not been able to establish that she was entitled to succeed the estate of Ghasi, whereas Maria etc. had successfully proved that they had the preferential right over the same being his agnates. Accordingly, R.S.A.No.4264 of 2005 -3- .... the suit of Ram Piari was dismissed, whereas the suit of Maria etc. was decreed. Hence, Ram Piari has filed these appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It was pleaded by Ram Piari that Ghasi was owner in possession of ½ share of the land mentioned in the plaint. He died issueless in the year 1962. After his death, Smt.Patori, who was widow of Bhartu son of Gokal, succeeded to his estate as Gokal and Ghasi were brothers. Ram Piari had also pleaded that since she was the daughter of Patori and Bhartu, she was entitled to succeed the estate of Patori which devolved upon her from Ghasi. It is pertinent to mention here that in R.S.A. No.2770 of 2004, which has been dismissed today, this Court has held that Ram Piari is not the daughter of Patori and Munshi and that she has no concern with the estate of Bhartu. On the same analogy, it is concluded herein that appellant- Ram Piari has no right to succeed the estate of Ghasi, who was uncle of Bhartu. Accordingly, both these appeals are held to be devoid of any merit and are dismissed. The reasons recorded in the judgment passed in R.S.A.No.2770 of 2004 so far as the status of Ram Piari qua the suit land is concerned may also be read as part of this order. January 07,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge