R.S.A. No. 3263 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3263 of 2005 Date of Decision : 18.3.2009 Ram Pal ....Appellant Versus Shrimati Kailash Rani ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 24.7.2003 and the first Appellate Court dated 29.4.2003. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that civil court decree dated 24.3.1989 passed in Civil Suit No.163 of 1989 and Will dated 9.7.2001 in favour of the respondent be declared as null and void and not binding on the rights of the appellant. The dispute pertains to the estate of one Hem Raj, who according to the appellant died on 10.2.2002 as bachelor and had no child. The appellant is nephew of deceased Hem Raj while the respondent Kailash Rani is the daughter. The factum of the respondent being daughter of Hem Raj was seriously disputed in the R.S.A. No. 3263 of 2005 -2- civil suit and also the Will dated 20.1.1997. The decree was assailed by alleging that it was procured by Hem Raj by playing fraud upon Budhu Ram from whom ½ share of the property had been obtained. Apart from this, challenge was also made to the decree which was not registered and was a collusive one. The Will was challenged on the ground that it was procured by the respondent fraudulently. The respondent, who appeared and contested the suit, pleaded that she is the daughter of deceased Hem Raj and was entitled to his estate after his death. It was further pleaded that Hem Raj, father of the respondent and Udey Bhan, father of the plaintiff/appellant and one Budhu Ram were three brothers. Budhu Ram had suffered a decree regarding the house in dispute in the year 1989 and the appellant is living therein and is in possession of half share of the house and the respondent is living in another half share of the house. After the death of Hem Raj the appellant tried to grab the entire property and the present litigation is an attempt in that regard. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the impugned civil court judgment and decree dated 24.3.1989 and Will dated 9.7.2001 both are illegal and void and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for along with possession of the first floor and house No.87/3 in question?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable nor the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit?OPD R.S.A. No. 3263 of 2005 -3- 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the court?OPD 5. Relief. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the decree dated 24.3.1989 was valid. In so far as the Will was concerned, it was also held to be valid. It was determined by the Courts below that the respondent was the daughter of Hem Raj. While returning this finding reliance was placed on Exs.D1 and D5, which are the matriculation certificate and the original house-tax receipt, respectively. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings returned by the Courts below the appellant is in appeal to contend that the findings of the Courts below are perverse. It has been contended that there is no evidence to suggest that the respondent was the daughter of Hem Raj as alleged by her. It was further contended that along with the present appeal two applications have been annexed wherein the respondent admitted that she is the daughter of one Manwar. On the strength of this learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have gone wrong in returning a finding regarding the respondent being the daughter of Hem Raj. In so far as the decree is concerned, the same was given up before this Court and the findings returned by the Court below on the issue were accepted. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the impugned judgments as also the record, I am of the R.S.A. No. 3263 of 2005 -4- considered opinion that the appeal is without any merit. The findings recorded by the courts below cannot be termed to be perverse as they are based on sound evidence. Exs.D1 and D5 are the basis of evidence which pointed out that the respondent is the daughter of Hem Raj and especially the matriculation certificate Ex.D1 is the conclusive pointer to this effect. That apart, there is other ancillary material on the record to suggest that the respondent is the daughter of Hem Raj. Even otherwise, this is a pure finding of fact. Since these findings are based on cogent material, the same cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant an interference in the regular second appeal. The only substantial question of law which has been agitated before this Court that the findings are perverse is answered against the appellant and that in view of the facts which have been met above, in the opinion of this Court the findings cannot be termed to be perverse. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 18.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss