IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4340 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 14, 2011. Tarsem Lal. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Bhagat Ram and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 03.03.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 21.04.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar dismissing suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.4340 of 2010 Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Dispute is regarding inheritance of property left by father of present appellant-plaintiff. Respondents-defendants are real brothers of appellant-plaintiff. Appellant-plaintiff has based his claim on the basis of Will dated 17.09.1987. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants propounded Will dated 06.06.1986. They have also taken the plea that no Will dated 17.09.1987 was allegedly executed by their deceased father and that however, the said Will in favour of present appellant-plaintiff was already cancelled by a registered cancellation deed by father of the parties. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by him against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that alleged cancellation deed has not been duly proved and that hence, as execution of Will by deceased father of the parties in favour of present appellant-plaintiff has not been denied by respondents-defendants, he is having right in the property on the basis of Will executed by his father in his favour. However, there is no force in the said argument of learned counsel for the appellant. Appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove execution of Will dated 17.09.1987 allegedly executed in his favour by his father. Even the original Will has not been produced. No attesting witness of the Will has been examined. Moreover, the said Will has been duly cancelled by cancellation deed dated 08.10.1987 registered on 09.10.1987. Respondents- 2 RSA No.4340 of 2010 defendants have examined Deed Writer of the said cancellation deed and the attesting witnesses of the cancellation deed, namely, P.S.Kalsi, Advocate (DW1). Sufficient evidence has been adduced by respondents-defendants to prove Will dated 06.06.1986 in their favour by the deceased. 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 both the 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 mis-appreciation 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 14, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3