RSA No.3981 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3981 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.07.2009 Nirmal Jit Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Bhupinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. H. K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K. S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 6. Mr. P. K. Kataria, Advocate for respondent No.9. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents claiming that they alongwith the appellant, being Class-I heirs of S. Teja Singh are entitled to succeed to the estate of S. Teja Singh by virtue of Section 8 of Hindu Section Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions:- “(A) Whether the Courts below have not erred in law while not deciding the real controversy raised in the suit with regard to the ancestral and joint nature of the disputed properties? (B) Whether the Courts below have not erred in law RSA No.3981 of 2006 (O&M) -2- while not framing any issue with regard to the nature of the property in spite of the fact that an application was made by the appellants for framing the necessary issues to the following effect and the application remained undecided:- (i)Whether property unit No.NM-215, Circular Road, Jalandhar is a Joint Hindu Family property having been purchased and built up from the Joint funds of S. Teja Singh and defendant Nos.1 and 2? (ii)Whether property unit No.263, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar is a Joint Hindu Family property having been purchased and built up from the joint funds of S. Teja Singh and defendant Nos.1 and 2? (iii)Whether plaintiffs have any right in the properties in question keeping in view its nature? (C) Whether the Courts below have not erred in law that in the absence of any issue with regard to the nature of property, no opportunity has been given to the appellant to prove his case as per the averments contained in his written statement?” As regards question no.’b’ as mentioned above, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that no further evidence has to be led. On the basis of the existing evidence on the record, both the Courts below have RSA No.3981 of 2006 (O&M) -3- held that the appellant has not been able to prove that the property was ancestral. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me not only through the finding but also through the evidence but has not been able to persuade me that the finding that the property is neither ancestral nor a coparcenery, is either based on no evidence or it is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. Question no.’a’ does not arise. Question no.'c' is related to question no.'b' and thus decided in the same terms. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 24, 2009 JUDGE ashish