Regular Second Appeal No. 3598 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 3598 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 Devender and Others … Appellants Versus Nanha and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The appellants/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction in respect of plot No. 126, Ward No. 3, Old No.1, Balmiki Basti, Insar Chowk, Panipat. They failed in their suit and aggrieved against the same, they filed appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. Having remained unsuccessful in two Courts below, the present regular second appeal has been filed. It was stated in the suit that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property as the same belong to one Mewa Ram. It was stated that during the life time of Mewa Ram, partition took place between his two sons Kalu Ram and Baru Ram. Baru Ram was grand father of the plaintiffs, whereas respondents belong to the branch of Regular Second Appeal No. 3598 of 2008 2 Kalu Ram. It was further stated that defendants intended to interfere in their suit property and they had fabricated a will of grand father of the plaintiffs in their favour and, therefore, will is null and void. The relief in the present plaint was sought qua plot No. 126. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs relied upon the will, which has been annexed as Annexure A2. The appellants/plaintiffs cannot seek any benefit out of the will, as tester Baru Ram according to agreement/family settlement (Annexure A1), became owner of only plot No.157. In the written statement, defendants took preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of suit, deficiency in Court fee, estoppel, locus standi and also that suit is time barred. On merits, all the averments made in the plaint were controverted. It was stated that material facts have been suppressed by the appellants/plaintiffs. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have relied upon agreement, which is only qua plot No. 157 and plaintiffs have nothing to do with plot No.126. Learned trial Court returned the finding of fact that there is nothing on the record to prove ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It was further held that no document of title has been placed on record to show that the plaintiffs or their forefathers were ever owners in possession of the suit property. Learned trial Court further held that burden to prove the ownership fell heavily on the plaintiffs, which they failed to prove and the suit was dismissed. The finding of learned trial Court was concurred by learned lower Appellate Court. It was further held that site plan Ex.P1 is in proof of the ownership of the appellants/plaintiffs over the suit property. Regular Second Appeal No. 3598 of 2008 3 I have heard Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs. He has placed his reliance upon the agreement which has been annexed as Annexure A1 and Will (Annexure A2). I have stated earlier that will is qua plot No. 126 but same was not owned by Baru Ram, as he was owner, as per the agreement, qua plot No.157. The concurrent findings of facts returned by the two Courts below have not been dislodged by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. Since the facts of the case by the two Courts below, after appreciating the evidence, have been determined against the appellants/plaintiffs, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has failed to make out any substantial question of law which could entertain attention of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 11, 2008 “DK”