RSA No.999 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.999 of 2011 Date of decision: September 16, 2011. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. ... Appellant(s) v. Nachhattar Singh & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri I.S. Brar, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Vide a separate judgment of even date rendered in RSA No.366 of 2010, this Court has upheld the findings returned by the two courts below in the litigation between the parties, that Banta Singh had executed a valid Will in favour of his son Nachhattar Singh. Present suit has been filed by Nachhattar Singh that he is owner in possession of the house in question on the basis of Will executed by his father and the defendant Mukhtiar Singh be restrained from interfering in his possession. Will dated 26.11.1987 Ex.P1 has been proved on record. The trial court has held that by examining the scribe and the attesting witnesses, registered Will has been duly proved by Nachhattar Singh and, therefore, he is owner in possession of the suit property. The findings returned by the trial court have been affirmed by the lower appellate court. Shri I.S. Brar, Counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant RSA No.999 of 2011 -: 2 :- Mukhtiar Singh, has stated that in the earlier suit filed by Mukhtiar Singh, pertaining to which RSA No.366 of 2010 has been decided vide a separate order of even date, the courts below have returned a finding that the Will dated 26.11.1987 Ex.P1 was executed by Banta Singh in favour of Nachhattar Singh. Counsel states that in view of the earlier suit where a finding came in favour of Nachhattar Singh plaintiff-respondent, defendant therein, filing of the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. Counsel has pressed Section 10 CPC in support of this contention. I have given my due consideration to the submission made by Counsel for the appellant. In the earlier suit, the appellant-defendant sought a declaration that he is owner in possession whereas in the present case, it is converse. Respondent-plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property. In the earlier suit, pertaining to which RSA No.366 of 2010 has been filed, though the validity of the Will has been upheld but the finding returned is that the present appellant-defendant is not owner in possession of the property. Whereas in the judgments which are under challenge, the finding on the basis of Will has come that the plaintiff- respondent is owner in possession, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by principles of res judicata. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present appeal is dismissed as the question of law formulated by Shri Brar, during the course of arguments, cannot be termed as a substantial one. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 16, 2011. Judge kadyan