RSA No.4170 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4170 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Gubax Singh and another .....Appellants v. Shanti Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12590-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4170 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.8.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge SAS Nagar (Mohali) dismissing appeal filed by appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 31.1.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, decreeing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for mere injunction on the brief allegations that she is in possession of the property in dispute and that appellants-defendants are having no right to interfere in her possession in the property in dispute. It was averred by respondent-plaintiff RSA No.4170 of 2010(O&M) -2- that earlier Pritam Singh was the owner of the property in dispute and that Smt.Kesro Rani alias Kesho was wife of Pritam Singh. Power of attorney was executed by Pritam Singh during his lifetime in favour of his wife Kesro Rani alias Kesho and on the basis of the same, she executed an agreement to sell regarding the property in dispute in favour of the plaintiff after receiving a sum of `5,000/- as earnest money. In the meantime, Pritam Singh died issueless on 5.1.1999. Pritam Singh also executed a Will dated 24.6.1975 in favour of Kesro Rani alias Kesho. After death of Pritam Singh, sale deed was executed by Kesro Rani alias Kesho in favour of respondent-plaintiff. It has been pleaded that Kesro Rani alias Kesho become owner in possession of the property in dispute after death of Pritam Singh as otherwise as well there was no other legal heir or natural heir of Pritam Singh except Kesro Rani alias Kesho. On notice being issued to defendants, they appeared and plea was taken by them that Pritam Singh was not the owner of the suit property and rather the property was owned and possessed by them. At the same time, plea was taken that Pritam Singh had executed a Will in favour of Ranjit Singh and Gurdeep Singh, sons of present appellants. Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed by learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence. Appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- defendants that it has not been proved that any Will was executed in favour of Smt.Kesro Rani alias Kesho by deceased Pritam Singh and that moreover mutation was sanctioned in favour of sons of present appellants on the basis of Will in their favour and that Will in their favour was upheld by the RSA No.4170 of 2010(O&M) -3- revenue Court, whereas Kesro Rani alias Kesho has failed to prove the Will in her favour. Though it has been observed by learned Courts below that suit for declaration regarding validity of Will in favour of Kesro Rani alias Kesho is also pending and, however, even if there is no Will either in favour of Kesro Rani alias Kesho or in favour of present appellants-defendants, Kesro Rani alias Kesho is entitled to inherit the property in dispute left by her husband as she is the only Class I heir of her husband. Agreement was executed by her in favour of respondent-plaintiff during lifetime of her husband on the basis of power of attorney and after the death of her husband, sale deed was executed on the plea that she inherited the property left by her husband. It has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that appellants-defendants have failed to prove any Will allegedly executed in their favour. 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 learned 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 misappreciation 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. 22.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge