RSA No.4043 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4043 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:18.08.2010 Tara Chand .... appellant Versus Budh Ram & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 to receive the compensation of the suit land on the basis of a Will, of the share of Shri Thakaria with a further prayer restraining defendant No.2 to disburse the compensation to defendant No.1 was dismissed. As per the averments 15K-15M of land out of 21K as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint was acquired. The land was owned by the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 3 to 7. It was further pleaded that Budh Ram, defendant No.1 fraudulently managed to get a Will executed in his favour from Thakaria which was registered on 04.06.1979. The aforesaid Thakaria was of unsound mind and the Will was got executed to grab the property of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 7. It was further pleaded RSA No.4043 of 2009(O & M) 2 that the aforesaid Will was challenged in civil suit which was pending. Since defendant No.2 wanted to withdraw the compensation, hence the suit. In the written statement, defendant No.1 pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and the same was also time barred. It was further pleaded that before filing of the present suit, a suit for partition was filed which was pending in the court of Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Faridabad where the plaintiff had claimed share to the extent of 8/122 admitting the Will. It was pleaded that Thakaria was issueless and he served him in his old age and out of love and affection he executed Will in his favour. It was further pleaded that the Will was challenged by way of a civil suit which was dismissed. However, it was admitted that 15K-15M of land was acquired. It was further pleaded that plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 7 had no share in the same. Other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Defendant No.2 pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was already pending. Remaining defendants were proceeded against ex parte. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1.Whether defendant No.1 is not entitled to receive the compensation from defendant No.2, on the basis of the Will dated 04.06.1979?OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3.Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4..Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD RSA No.4043 of 2009(O & M) 3 5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? 7.Relief. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, issues No.1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiffs. Issues No.3 to 6 were not pressed. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.05.2009. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court recorded that some compensation amount has already been disbursed. The suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the Will has been dismissed and now the appeal filed by the plaintiff in that suit is pending before this Court but there was no evidence to show that there was any interim order in favour of the appellant. The issue regarding validity of the Will was questioned in the earlier suit and the same cannot be raised in the second suit and the plaintiff-appellant could have approached for interim injunction in that very suit and the separate suit was not maintainable. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below submitting the following substantial questions of law in the grounds of appeal: 1.Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are based on conjectures and surmises? 2.Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are based on misreading the facts and same are liable to be set aside? RSA No.4043 of 2009(O & M) 4 3.Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are erroneous and same are liable to be reversed? I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below. The aforesaid facts, as noticed above have not been disputed. In view of the aforesaid facts recorded by the courts below, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to raise any worthwhile argument before this court, in support of the appeal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 18.08.2010 neenu