In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan Bench At Jaipur. SB Civil Second Appeal No.400/08 Shanker Singh v. Naurat Mal & others Date of order March 6, 2009 Hon'ble Justice JR Goyal Mr. Jitendra Singh Tanwar, for appellant This second appeal under S.100 CPC has been preferred by the appellant- defendant against the judgment and decree dated 19.8.08 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Ajmer Camp Kishangarh in Civil Regular Appeal No.127/07 (18/2002), whereby the appeal filed by appellant-defendant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 25.2.02 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kishangarh (Ajmer) in Civil Suit No.280/93 has been affirmed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent Naurat Mal filed a suit on 5.9.88 against the present defendant-appellant with the averment that the plaintiff is owner of the disputed house situated in Kishangarh town, which was purchased on 14.7.60 by late Shri Aalam Chandji, father of the plaintiff from erstwhile owner Shri Rai Singh by a registered sale-deed and since then he along with his father remained in occupation of the property as owner. After death of his father Shri Aalam Chand in the month of June 1975, plaintiff became the sole owner and having exclusive possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff used to keep his old items, fodder and cattle in the disputed property. When he started repair and renovation work, on 5.1.87 defendants no.1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 entered into the said house and gave beating to the sons of plaintiff and also damaged the wall of the house and forcibly took illegal possession. Therefore, prayer was made for possession and damages for use and occupation and also claimed damages for illegal occupation and also demanded some more damages. Defendant-appellant denied the occupation, ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed house and claimed the ownership over the property in dispute through Will dated 20.6.86 executed by original owner of the disputed property Shri Rai Singh in favour of Shanker Singh. The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed issues after recording evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit in part. First Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant was dismissed, therefore, this second appeal has been preferred. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission. It was, inter alia, contended that the registered sale-deed dated 14.7.1960 in favour of plaintiff and his father Aalam Chand is forged one. They were never in possession of the disputed property. It was also contended that the disputed property has been given by its owner Rai Singh, to the appellant by way of Will, which was executed in the year 1986. Therefore, First Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper manner. I have considered the submissions. There is a clear finding of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court that the disputed property has been sold by its owner Shri Rai Singh to father of the plaintiff Aalam Chand on 14.7.60 by a registered sale-deed, therefore, the Will dated 20.6.86, as claimed by the appellant in favour of Shanker Singh by the original owner much after the registered sale- deed dated 14.7.60, does not confer any right and title over the disputed property in favour of the appellant. In this situation, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. No substantial question of law appear to be involved in this case, therefore, this appeal being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed in limine. (JR Goyal) J. db