R.S.A No. 1951 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1951 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : May 20, 2010 Umed Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Shanti Devi and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 5 for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute. The case set up by respondents No.1 to 5 was that their predecessor-in-interest had purchased the property in dispute, vide registered sale deed No.628, dated 15.6.1971 from the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant and his co-defendants. The appellant and other co- defendants took the defence that the sale deed in favour of respondents No.1 to 5 was a forged and fraudulent document and further that their R.S.A No. 1951 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: predecessor-in-interest had executed a Will in favour of the sons of the appellant and that mutation having been sanctioned before the institution of the suit, and the sons of the appellant not being impleaded as a party, the suit should be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Both the Courts below found that respondents No.1 to 5 had been able to prove the sale deed of 1971. On the question of non-joinder of necessary parties, both the Courts held that respondents No.1 to 5 had impleaded all the legal representatives of Rama Nand (deceased vendor). The Courts also found that under the Will, respondent No.6 was a co-heir along with the sons of the appellant and consequently it had to be held that their alleged interest would be watched by the impleaded defendants. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties ? (2) Whether the findings of the Courts below are mis- reading of the evidence whereas PW2 is stating that the land is lying vacant since last 32 years and PW1 is saying that he is cultivating the land whereas he is not belonging to village Roda ? (3) Whether the plaintiffs have failed to connect the land which was allotted as per pleadings of the plaintiffs during consolidation ? (4) Whether the suit can be decreed on the basis of the entry in the revenue record that Ruli Ram was a Gair Marusi tenant whereas PW1 and PW2 had not stated regarding the possession of Ruli Ram ? R.S.A No. 1951 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: (5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (6) Whether the appellant and proforma respondents are owner in possession of the land on the basis of Will dated 6.8.1993 ? (7) Whether the sale deed dated 15.6.1971 is based on fraud and misrepresentation ? (8) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused to the appellant and proforma respondents ?” It would be seen that questions No. (1), (6) and (7) are connected. In case the sale deed of 1971 is held to be proved, then non- impleadment of the sons of the appellant would recede in the back ground. As regards the sale deed of 1971, there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below regarding its due execution. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Once questions No.(1) and (7) are decided against the appellant, question No.(6) also recedes in the back ground. As regards questions No.2, 3, 4 and 8, these are also pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. No arguments have been addressed on question No.5. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. R.S.A No. 1951 of 2010 (O&M) ::4:: As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 20, 2010. JUDGE `kk'