RSA 1269 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAN AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA 1269 of 2008 Date of decision: 13.10.2009 Ram Singh appellant vs Om Parkash and others Respondent Present: Mr. Divya Sarup, Avocate. 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 ? M.M.S.BEDI,J. The plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is owner of 1/6th share of the total land, described in the head note of the plaint measuring 302 kanal 15 Marlas and that he is in possession of the said land. The validity of the gift deed dated 18.12.1968 regarding the 1/6th share in 302 kanal 15 marlas of land had also been challenged claiming that the same had been obtained by the defendant- respondents by playing a fraud upon him in the year 1968. The trial court had held that the property in dispute was not a coparcenary property and that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed a gift deed dated 18.12.1968 in favour of defendant- respondents 1 and 2 and Omkar deceased. The trial court also held that a mutation had been entered on the basis of the gift deed on 20.2.1969. Even the wife of the plaintiff, in an earlier suit, filed by her challenging the title of the defendant- respondents regarding the same RSA 1269 of 2008 2 1/6th share had ultimately compromised the matter, impliedly admitting the gift deed on receipt of some money. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the gift deed dated 18.12.1968 is the result of fraud and that the plaintiff- appellant has been deprived of his property by playing a fraud upon him. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length and going through the judgments, passed by the courts below, I am of the considered opinion that both the courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellant Ram Singh had executed the gift deed dated 18.12.1968 regarding his 1/6th share in the property in dispute, regarding which the mutation had been entered in the year 1969. No legal ground has been made out to interfere in the said finding of fact. Besides this the suit filed in the year 1996, after a lapse of 26 years, is barred by time. No law point arises in the present appeal, as such the same is dismissed. October 13 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE