RSA No.542 of 1983 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.542 of 1983 (O & M) Date of decision: 29.06.2010 Munshi Ram and others .. Appellants Versus Dev Raj .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent- plaintiff and thereby decreeing the suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute. The respondent had filed the suit claiming that he was entitled to the share of one Lal Chand being his survivor and the mutation in favour of the appellants which had been sanctioned on the ground that the mother of the appellants was the sister of deceased-Lal Chand was illegal. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit both on the ground of limitation holding that the mutation was challenged after a period of two decades and also holding that the appellants had succeeded in proving that their mother Devki Devi is the sister of Lal Chand-deceased. The learned Lower Appellate Court held that the suit based on title was not hit by limitation. On facts, the learned Lower Appellate Court after discussing the entire evidence, held that the appellants had not been able to prove that Devki Devi aforesaid was the sister of Lal Chand. When this appeal was filed, no questions of law were RSA No.542 of 1983 (O & M) ::2:: framed. Even today, no questions of law have been formally framed. However, the questions of law which learned counsel has argued can be as enumerated as follows:- (i) Whether the suit of the respondent was within limitation ? (ii) Whether the conclusion of the learned Lower Appellate Court that Devki Devi was not proved to be the sister of Lal Chand was so perverse as to vitiate the finding. As regards question No.(i), learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the suit based on title can be held to be barred by limitation. As regards question No.(ii), learned counsel has vehemently argued that the evidence brought on the record by the appellants clearly established that Devki Devi was in fact the sister of Lal Chand-deceased. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, asserted equally vehemently that the learned Lower Appellate Court has discussed the testimony of each witness and has drawn the right conclusion. It cannot be lost sight of that the High Court cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless it comes to the conclusion that the finding is either based on no evidence or on blatantly perverse misreading of the evidence. Having gone through not only the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court but also the testimony of the witnesses produced by the appellants, learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the judgment and order of the learned Lower Appellate Court suffers from either of the vices mentioned above. In these circumstances, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) June 29, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet RSA No.542 of 1983 (O & M) ::3::