1 417 V RSA N542 of 1983 O 8 Ml 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA N542 of 1983 O S Ml Dateof decisionl 2906201 0 Munshi Ram and others Appellants Versus Dev Raj 1 Respondent CORAM HONBLE MRJSTICE AJAY TEWARI 0 0 al Whether Reportersof Local Papersmay be aliowed to see the judgment7 bl To be referred to the Reportersor not 7 cl Whetherthe judgment should be reportedin the Digest2 0 I Presentl MTribhuvan SinglaAdvocate for the appellants Z MtKanwal GoyalAdvocate for the respondent AJAY TEWARI J IORALI I This appealhas been filed againstthe judgmentand order 08 of the Iearned Lower AppellateCoun allowingthe appealof the respondente CQ plaintiffand therebydecreeingthe suit for deciaration that he Is owner in 7 Z possessionof the Iandin dispute The respondenthad Oled the suit claiming that he was entitled to the share of one Lal Chand beinghis survivor and the mutationin favour of the appellantswhich had been sanctioned on the ground that the mother of the appellantswas the sister of deceasedeLal Chand was illegal The Iearned Trial Coun dismissed the suit both on the groundof Iimitationholdingthat the mutationwas challengedaner a periodof two decades and also holdingthat the appellantshad succeeded in provingthat their mother DevkiDevi is the sister of Lal Chanddeceased The IearnedLower AppellateCoun held that the suit based on title was not hit by Iimitation On facts the Iearned Lower AppellateCourt after discussingthe entire evidence held that the appellantshad not been able to provethat Devki Devi aforesaid was the sister of LaI Chand When this appealwas filed no questions of Iaw were . Anita 2012.05.18 13: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 418 6V 1 RSA N542 of 1983 O S Ml 1 framed Eventoday no questionsof Iaw have been formallyframed However thequestionsof Iaw which Iearned counsel has arguedcan be as enumerated as followsm il Whether the suit of the respondentwas within Iimitation7 oiI Whether the conclusion of the IearnedLower Appellate Courtthat Devki Devi was not provedto be the sister of Lal 1 Chandwas so perverseas to vitiatethe finding 0 As regardsquestionNool Iearned counsel has not been 0 able to persuaderne that the suit based on title can be held to be barred by I C0 Iimitation I As regards question Noiil Iearned counsel has arguedthat the evidence broughton the record by the appellants Z clearly established that Devki Devi was in fact the sister of Lal Chandrieceased m 0 Learnedcounsel for the respondenthas however asserted equallyvehemenUy I that the Iearned Lower AppellateCoun has discussed the testimonyof each 08 witnessand has drawn the rightconclusion It cannot be Iost sightof that the r12 HighCoutt cannot interferewith a Ondingof fact unless it comes to the m Z conclusion that the findingIS either based on no evidence or on blatantly perversemisreadingof the evidence Havinggone throughnot only the tl judgment of the Iearned Lower AppellateCourt but also the testimonyof the witnesses producedby the appellantsIearned counsel has not been able to persuademe that the judgmentand order of the Iearned Lower AppellateCoun suffers from either of the vices mentioned aboven these circumstances holding the questionsproposedagainstthe appellantsthis appealis dismissed No costs Since the main appeal has been decided the Civil MiscellaneousAppIicationif any shall stand disposedof accordingly 1 1 Ilt June 29 2010 JUDGE Io sukhpreet . Anita 2012.05.18 13: 07 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document