Regular Second Appeal No. 1620 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1620 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 26, 2009 Balwinder Singh and another .....APPELLANTS VERSUS Surinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants. T.P.S .MANN, J. (Oral): Suit filed by the appellants and two others, namely, Inderjit Singh and Amandeep Singh for declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in dispute, or, in the alternative, for joint possession of the suit property, and, for permanent injunction, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khanna on 23.2.2007. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed the first appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 1.9.2008. Still dissatisfied, the appellants are now before this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs had based their claim to the suit property on the basis of a Will, said to have been executed by Rajinder Singh on 7.10.1991. After going through the evidence brought on the record, learned Courts below concurrently held that on the said date, Rajinder Regular Second Appeal No. 1620 of 2009 -2- Singh was admitted in the hospital and he was unconscious. Besides, Rajinder Pal Sood, Deed-writer, who was examined by the plaintiffs as PW-3 admitted in his cross-examination that Rajinder Singh was seriously ill and was not in a position to move his hand and foot. For the aforementioned reasons, learned Courts below rightly doubted the Will said to have been executed by Rajinder Singh and consequently, the suit was dismissed. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor suffering from any illegality or infirmity. These cannot be disturbed and that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellants arise for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. (T.P.S.MANN) November 26, 2009. JUDGE Pds