Regular Second Appeal No. 1911 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1911 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.5.2009 *** Reshma Devi .. Appellant VS. Ajmer Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration. The plaintiff, claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of Late Smt. Mandri Devi and Bachhittar Singh filed the suit and laid challenge to the mutation Nos. 187 and 188 sanctioned in favour of the defendants. It was her case that her adoptive parents had expired and Labh Singh, son of her adoptive parents also died, leaving behind the plaintiff as their only legal heirs, but defendants No.1 to 4 who are sons and daughters of brother of Bachhittar Singh, wrongly get mutated the suit property situated at village Balabalpur and further sold the same to defendants No.5 to 11, without any right title or interest. It was also her case that deceased Mandri Devi executed a Will in her favour bequeathing all his movable and immovable properties in her favour. Defendants No.1 to 4 did not contest the suit and were proceeded against ex-parte, while defendants No.5 to 11, the purchasers, Regular Second Appeal No. 1911 of 2009 2 denied the averments of the plaint. The learned trial court disbelieved the theory of the plaintiff of her being taken in adoption by Bachhittar Singh and Mandri Devi and finding the Will dated 18.10.1996 allegedly executed by Mandri Devi surrounded with suspicious circumstances, dismissed the suit. Finding that the defendants No.1 to 4 were having pre-existing rights in the properties left out by the deceased Bachhittar Singh, Mandri Devi and their only son Labh Singh, it was held that the impugned mutations were rightly sanctioned in their favour being Class-II heirs, in absence of any Class-I heir and they were further well within their rights to sell the same in favour of defendants No.5 to 11. Similar was the view of the first appellate Court, which while affirming the findings of the learned trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. Hence this regular second appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal arises for determination in this appeal. It is an admitted fact that Bachhittar Singh was married with Mandri Devi. They were having one son named Labh Singh. Bachhittar Singh died somewhere in the year 1993, Labh Singh on 20.4.1996 and Mandri Devi breathed her last on 24.10.1996. It is also an admitted fact that mother of plaintiff namely Ramesh Devi was the real sister of Mandri Devi. The positive case of the plaintiff was that since Bachhittar Singh and Mandri Devi were having no issue, therefore, they took her in adoption and later after the death of Bachhittar Singh and Labh Singh, Mandri Devi executed a Will dated 18.10.1996 in her favour. As per evidence adduced by the plaintiff her date of birth was 15.5.1970 and she was taken in adoption when she was about one and a half years old, while it has been proved on record that Labh Singh was born somewhere in the year 1969. Even the documents produced on the record by the plaintiff to show that she remained at Nangal with Bachittar Singh as his daughter viz. Admission form, ration card etc. have been discarded by both the Courts below being surrounded with suspicion and created belatedly, after the death of Labh Singh and Mandri Devi, just to favour the plaintiff. That apart the same were found discrepant with the ocular version of the plaintiff and her Regular Second Appeal No. 1911 of 2009 3 witnesses, having cuttings therein. An attempt was made by the plaintiff to prove the adoption ceremony, but all the witnesses examined in this behalf were found closely related to her and none of them was belonging to Bachittar Singh, leading to the concurrent findings by the Courts below that the plaintiff was not the adopted daughter of Bachittar Singh and she continued to be the daughter of Ram Kishan. The plaintiff further staked her claim on the estate left out by the deceased Mandri Devi on the basis of Will dated 18.10.1996, but her said theory was disbelieved by both the Courts below. Admittedly, the scribe of the alleged Will, prepared a rough draft of the Will, but the same was never produced before the Court to prove that the last desire of the deceased was rightly reduced into the writing, as mentioned in the impugned Will. The uneven spacing in the lines of the Will was also noticed, leading to the conclusion that the signatures of Mandri Devi were obtained on blank paper which lateron was converted into the said Will. Admittedly, Smt. Mandri Devi died just after 6 days of execution of said Will and thus, both the Courts below concurrently held that she was not keeping good health at that time. Thus, the Courts below concurrently held that the Will dated 18.10.1996 is not a genuine document and the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit therefrom. Once it was concluded that neither the plaintiff was adopted daughter of Bachittar Singh and Mandri Devi nor any Will dated 18.10.1996 was executed in her favour by Smt. Mandri Devi, therefore, in absence of any Class-I heirs, defendants No.1 to 4 being Class-II heirs of Bachittar Singh became the owners of the suit land and they further alienated the same in favour of defendants No.5 to 11 by virtue of sale deed dated 24.12.1996. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 15,2009 Jiten