IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4371 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Balbir Singh … Appellant Versus Jeet Ram and others … Respondents Present: Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the appellant … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiffs’ second appeal directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration has been dismissed. In brief, the facts are that originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against his father for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of 1/3rd share in the land standing in the name of the defendant, i.e. his father. Besides this, he sought consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession. It was alleged that in a family settlement, his father(defendant) had surrendered his share in the land in favour of the plaintiff and he(plaintiff) had become owner of 2/3rd share in all. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant subsequently did not get the mutation executed. Upon notice of the suit, defendant denied having given 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. He further stated that there was no family settlement and as such, there was no question of his having handed over his share to the plaintiff. Defendant stated that the plaintiff despite his son, had been troubling him and was not providing him with the bare necessities like food and clothing. Defendant, however, died during the pendency of the suit and therefore, his legal representatives besides the plaintiff were brought on record as defendants. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3, Puran Chand, RSA No. 4371 of 2008 -2- propounded a Will which is stated to have been executed by defendant- deceased Ram Parshad in his favour. Accordingly, the plaintiff amended his plaint thereby seeking the relief that the Will was null and void. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2005, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved therefrom, plaintiff preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below after appreciation of evidence brought on record, after noticing the fact that on the death of the original defendant, namely, Ram Parshad, defendant No.3 Puran Chand brought the Will into execution, to which the plaintiff took the plea that the suit property being ancestral, no Will could have been executed by Ram Parshad in that regard, have concurrently held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the suit property was ancestral. It has been held that Ram Parshad during his life time, while contesting the suit had categorically pleaded that plaintiff was not looking after him and it was Puran Chand (defendant no.3) who was taking care of him as his father. The Courts below have further taken notice of the Will so executed by Ram Parshad in which it finds mention that his sons Ranjit and Puran Chand and daughter Usha were looking after him and that the testator did not want to give anything to the plaintiff out of his property. The Will in question has been found to have been duly proved by the defendant, coupled with the statements of the scribe and attesting Witnesses of the said Will. Furthermore, the name of defendant Puran Chand was found appearing in the ration-card of the deceased Ram Parshad and when the Pagri ceremony was conducted, the Pagri was tied on the heads of the sons of Puran Chand-defendant, being the grandsons of Ram Parshad. The Courts below have also held that the plaintiff could not prove on record that there was any family settlement in which he had been given 1/3rd share by his father; rather during his life his father when filed the written statement to the present suit, had categorically stated that there was no such settlement 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. RSA No. 4371 of 2008 -3- Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 31, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE