RSA No. 1908 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1908 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.5.2009 Sumitra Bibi & others … Appellants Versus Harnam Singh and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the appellant … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration has been dismissed. The dispute in this case is between sisters and brothers, viz., plaintiffs are the sisters while defendants are the brothers. Plaintiffs brought the present suit pleading therein that they are owners/co-sharers to the extent of 1/6th share each along with defendants in land measuring 17 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 30, Killa No. 1/2(1-12), 2/1 (7-16) 2/2(0-4), 9(8-0) situated at village Mare Khurd, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. They alleged that previously, Ghaban Singh, i.e. father of the parties, was owner in possession of the suit land. After his death, the plaintiffs and the defendants are the only legal heirs as their mother had already expired before the death of their father Ghaban Singh and as such, they are owners/co-sharers to the extent of 1/6th share each. They alleged that after the death of Ghaban Singh, defendants 1 and 2 came into possession of the suit land and they started giving the share of produce to them but later on, stopped giving the same. Thereafter, defendants 1 and 2 got sanctioned mutation No. 1195 in their favour. Hence, the suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement stated that Ghaban Singh, their father, had executed a valid registered Will dated 31.10.1995 in their favour and on the basis of the said Will, mutation No. 1195 was sanctioned in their favour. It was denied that any share of produce was ever given to the plaintiffs as alleged. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence RSA No. 1908 of 2009 2 adduced on record, vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2009 by the first appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have concurrently held that the Will, Ex.D-1, stands duly proved on record in view of the statements of the attesting witnesses Kehar Singh and Chetan Sharma, nephew of Narinder Kumar (since deceased), the scribe. Kehar Singh while appearing as DW-1 has by way of his affidavit Exhibit DW-1/A stated that Ghaban Singh had executed Will Exhibit D-1 in favour of his sons Harnam Singh and Gurnam Singh (defendants 1 and 2 ), which was scribed by Narinder Kumar, document- writer. Chetan Sharma in turn has proved Sr. No. 1116 of the register with regard to the Will. In this regard, the first appellate Court in its judgment has placed reliance upon a judgment in Kashibai and another v. Parwatibai and others, 1995(2) Civil Court Cases 717. Further more, mutation on the basis of the said Will also stood sanctioned by the Tehsildar in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the Will, Exhibit D- 1, has rightly been held to be a valid document and not surrounded by suspicious circumstances as alleged by the plaintiff. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. May 6, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE