RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 23.7.2008 Zile Singh and other ...Appellants VERSUS Gulab Singh and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellant Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) When the matter was being taken up for hearing. Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate has intervened and requested the court that the present RSA may be adjourned and be heard alongwith CR No.4927 of 2007. He has also referred to the order dated 29.11.2007 passed in the aforesaid Revision which reads as under:- “On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that RSA No.3657 of 2002 is pending in this Court and is listed on regular Board of Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.K.Sharma, at Sr.No.831. In the facts and circumstances, this petition be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for sending to RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :2: that Court”. In the aforesaid order, the file was required to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. No such order has been brought to my notice that the revision petition has been directed to be heard alongwith the present RSA. Apart from the above, learned counsel, however, states that he is not engaged in the present RSA. Learned counsel has further stated that another CR No.4512 of 2001 is also required to be heard alongwith the present RSA. No relevancy has been shown in the order passed in the aforesaid revision to be heard alongwith this RSA. Under these circumstances, I decline his prayer for hearing the said revision with the present RSA and the present RSA is being taken up for final hearing. Appellants herein are defendants no.1 and 3 in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, respondents no.1 to 14 herein. Plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit seeking a decree for possession of 22 acres of land described in the plaint claiming to be the sister's sons and daughters of Darab Singh, the owner of the land in question. The plaintiffs claim that they are the nearest heirs of the deceased Darab Singh. While giving the pedegree, it has been mentioned that one Kundan had a son- Darab Singh and a daughter Bhulli. Darab Singh was issueless as his wife pre-deceased him. Bhulli survived by Sunhari, Hukam Singh and Ajmer Singh i.e. two sons and a daughter. Plaintiffs no.1 to 8 and defendants no.22 and 23 are the sons and daughters of Sunhari whereas Hukam Singh is plaintiff no.9 and plaintiffs no.10 to 14 and defendants no.22 to 27 are successors-in-interest of Ajmer Singh, on the basis of their relationship as the collaterals of Darab RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :3: Singh who died in 1972. The deceased had left the suit property situated at village Kasor. They also alleged that the defendants are not permitting the plaintiffs and defendants no.22 to 27 to possess the suit land. On being put to notice, only defendants no.1 and 3 contested the suit whereas some of the defendants were proceeded ex-parte and some died and given up. The defendants claim that they are the owners in possession of the suit land, on the basis of Mutation No.855 sanctioned by the Collector, Kaithal in their favour on 7.2.1994. They also claimed to be the legatees of the deceased Darab Singh and entitled to the land in question. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are heirs of Darab Singh as alleged? OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP 3.Whether Darab Singh executed any will in favour of defendants no.1 and 3? OPD3. 4.Whether defendants no.1 and 3 are in possession of the suit land being legatees of Darab Singh? OPD3 5.Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD 6.Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD 7.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :4: 8.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 9.Relief.” Issues no.1 and 3 were taken up together for consideration by the trial court. It is also relevant to mention that the defendants also denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Darab Singh. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Plaintiffs examined Hukam Singh as PW1, Isham Singh as PW2 and Yaspal Chand Jain, handwriting expert as PW3. Isham Singh, PW2 who also belonged to the Village Kasor proved that the plaintiffs are the sister's sons and daughters of Darab Singh and their successors. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have established their relationship with deceased Darab Singh. Even the defendants also admitted in their cross-examination the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased Darab Singh. The defendants during the course of evidence, relied upon a will dated 6.12.1971, Ex.D1. The handwriting expert compared the signatures of Darab Singh on the Consolidation Scheme of the area prepared somewhere 40 years back and opined that the signatures on the will do not tally with the signatures of Darab Singh, on the consolidation scheme. Though the defendants produced the marginal witnesses to the will, however, on the basis of the evidence of the expert witness, the trial court returned a finding that the defendants have failed to establish the due execution of the will and the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed for possession vide judgment and decree dated RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :5: 31.1.2000. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appellants alone preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kaithal. The lower appellate court vide its detailed judgment and decree dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me to the evidence relied upon by the courts below. His contention is that both the courts have wrongly relied upon the consolidation scheme to compare the signatures of Darab Singh with the signatures on the will. According to the learned counsel, it has not been established with certainty that the signatures on the consolidation scheme were of Darab Singh. However, both the courts have categorically held that Darab Singh was resident of village Kasor and there is no other person with the name of Darab Singh in the said village and he being the landlord put his signatures on the consolidation scheme. It is not in dispute that Darab Singh was a big landlord and he was definitely interested in the preparation of the consolidation scheme. There is evidence on record that except this Darab Singh, there was no other person with the same name in the said village. Apart from that the defendants have not led any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. It is settled proposition of law that even if two views are possible from the appreciation of evidence and the view taken by the courts below is one of the possible view, no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :6: is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.7.2008 MFK RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :7: