RSA No.3457 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3457 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 26, 2011 Mohinder Kaur and others .....Appellants v. Mukhtiar Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 16.5.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which appeal filed by present respondents, i.e., legal representatives of plaintiff (deceased) was partly accepted and the suit filed by plaintiff was partly decreed to the extent that he was held to be co-sharer to the extent of 1/5th share in the property in dispute and the remaining 4/5th share was held to be owned by appellants-defendants and their one sister. However, it has been made clear that plaintiff is having no share in the building constructed by the present appellants-defendants about 20 years ago. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. Briefly stated, parties are closely related. Dispute is between sons of Jaswant Singh, who died in the year 1946. The suit has been filed for partition by one of the sons of Jaswant Singh, i.e., predecessor-in- RSA No.3457 of 2011(O&M) -2- interest of respondents, namely, Major Singh, claiming his share in the house in dispute on the basis of inheritance. Suit was contested by present appellants on the plea that the same was purchased by their mother from Dial Singh by registered sale deed and that thereafter she suffered a consent decree in their favour. However, one of the appellants, i.e., appellant no.6- Gurcharan Singh has himself admitted in his cross-examination, which has been reproduced by present appellants in the grounds of appeal itself that his father died in the year 1946 and after his death, the property in dispute was inherited by all the three brothers including the plaintiff. He has taken contradictory plea that the house was given to his mother by his father and however, he has admitted that no writing was executed in favour of his mother. It has also been admitted by him in his cross-examination that Dial Singh from whom the property in dispute had been allegedly purchased by his mother was his real maternal uncle. Though plea has been taken that the property was purchased by Dial Singh from Balwant Singh, however, no such document has been placed on record. Even in the later part of the cross-examination he has again reiterated that the house in dispute was initially owned by his father Jaswant Singh and that when his father died the Panchayat had given the house to his mother in lieu of agricultural land given to the brothers. However, he has failed to prove the said plea. Learned first appellate Court has also considered the entries in the record maintained by Municipal Council, Bathinda qua assessment of house tax, which also shows that the house is owned by all the brothers, after the death of Jaswant Singh. Hence, appellants have failed to prove that Dial Singh was having any interest in the property in dispute. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any RSA No.3457 of 2011(O&M) -3- illegality has been committed by learned first appellate courts in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by the learned appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 26.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge