Regular Second Appeal No. 2288 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2288 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.5.2009 *** Paramjit Kaur .. Appellant VS. Amarjit Kaur & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant was one of the defendants in the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. She is challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land measuring 21 kanal 18 marlas being the legal representative of deceased Nand Singh and the mutation No.18031 sanctioned in favour of defendants is illegal, consequently the defendants have been restrained from alienating the suit land to the extent of share of plaintiff. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise. Admittedly, Nand Singh, the father of plaintiff, husband of defendant No.1 and father-in-law of defendant No.2(appellant) was owner of the suit property. After the death of Nand Singh, his son Thana Singh, daughter Amarjit Kaur and Jagir Kaur widow stepped into the shoes of Nand Singh and after the death of Thana Singh, he was succeeded by appellant Paramjit Kaur. It emerges out that there is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties. The plaintiff staked her claim in the suit property to the extent of 1/3rd share on the basis of succession while the case of the defendants was Regular Second Appeal No. 2288 of 2008 2 that mutation No.18031 was sanctioned in their favour by virtue of Will dated 24.2.1998 allegedly executed by Nand Singh, but surprisingly no such Will was produced or proved on record. Thus, finding that the mutation cannot confer any title and the admitted relationship between the parties, the plaintiff was rightly held entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property, as per succession. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 12,2009 Jiten