R.S.A No. 477 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 477 of 1985 Date of Decision: 14.9.2011. Smt. Veero .......Appellant Vs. Assa Ram and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for joint possession claiming 1/3rd share in agricultural land measuring 14 Kanals 14 Marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 4/2(3-7), 5/3(3-7) and 6(8-0). The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief was that she was the daughter of Hukam Chand who was the owner of the suit property. The defendant No.1 was the brother of the plaintiff. Hukam Chand had died on 20.2.1972. The plaintiff was residing in district Ferozepur and defendant No.1, taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, got the mutation qua inheritance of the property left by Hukam Chand, sanctioned in his favour. At the time of death of Hukam Chand, all the other R.S.A No. 477 of 1985 -2- heirs except the plaintiff and defendants were alive. Defendant No.1 took forcible possession of the suit land after the death of Hukam Chand. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Hukam Chand. The mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the answering defendant being the sole legal heir of deceased Hukam Chand. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Shri Hukam Chand? OPP 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP 3. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.1982, trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal and the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.1984 allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit alleging therein that she was the daughter of Hukam Chand and defendant No.1-Assa Ram was her real brother. After the death of Hukam Chand, plaintiff was also entitled to get the share in the suit property. However, the appellant-plaintiff had failed to establish her case. The R.S.A No. 477 of 1985 -3- learned first appellate court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, has given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she was the daughter of Hukam Chand. The said finding of fact calls for no interference by this court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 14, 2011 Gurpreet