RSA No.3584 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3584 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011 Sukhjit Singh and others .....Appellants v. Bachan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10131-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 8 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.3584 of 2011 Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 15.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 18.9.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, dismissing suit filed by him. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. Briefly stated, dispute is regarding inheritance of the property of Bhagat Singh-deceased. Suit was filed by Balwant Singh, one of the sons of Bhagat Singh, who expired during pendency of the suit and is now RSA No.3584 of 2011(O&M) -2- represented by his legal representatives, i.e., present appellants. Respondents no.1 and 2 are the other sons of Bhagat Singh, whereas respondents no.3 and 4 are the sons of respondent no.1-Bachan Singh, respondents no.5 to 8 are the sons of respondent no.2-Amar Singh son of Bhagat Singh, respondent no.9 is wife of respondent no.3-Sadhu Singh, son of Bachan Singh. Respondents no.10 to 13 are daughters of Bhagat Singh. Appellants-plaintiffs are claiming share in the property in dispute on the basis of a Will dated 7.8.1968 allegedly executed by Bhagat Singh in favour of Balwant Singh, the original plaintiff. However, it has come on record that Bhagat Singh during his lifetime executed another Will dated 7.7.1972 registered on 12.7.1972, vide which previous Will in favour of plaintiff was cancelled. Appellants-plaintiffs have also challenged civil Court decrees dated 3.12.1982, 7.5.1987, 6.3.1990 and 3.2.1992 suffered by Bhagat Singh in favour of respondents-defendants on the plea that the property was ancestral in the hands of Bhagat Singh and that he could not transfer the same by way of collusive Court decrees. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that Will dated 7.7.1972 which was registered on 12.7.1972 in favour of respondents-defendants no.1 and 2 has been duly proved. The courts have also come to the conclusion that decrees are also validly passed and that the property in the hands of Bhagat Singh was self acquired property and not co parcenary property. Suit was dismissed by learned trial Court and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that decrees are result of fraud and that there is no limitation for RSA No.3584 of 2011(O&M) -3- challenging the decrees on the basis of fraud and hence, the Courts below have committed illegality in holding that the decrees were validly passed. However, no such plea of alleged fraud has been taken by appellants-plaintiffs in this case. It is settled law that the fraud has to be specifically pleaded and proved. 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 the lower 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. 6.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge