R.S.A.No.3394 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No. 10500-C of 2009 and Regular Second Appeal No.3394 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 22nd September, 2009 Manpreet Kaur ......Appellant Versus Partap Singh and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashok Khunger, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J. Though there is a delay in the filing of the appeal, counsel for the appellant has been heard on merits. The appellant challenges the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar and the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Muktsar. The plaintiff, since deceased filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of a plot measuring 2 marlas. The plaintiff averred that the suit land was originally owned by Joginder Singh. Upon his demise, the suit land was inherited by Simarjit Kaur, widow of Joginder Singh, who passed away on 24.09.1997. As Joginder Singh and Simarjit Kaur passed away issue less, the suit land has devolved upon the plaintiff and R.S.A.No.3394 of 2009 2 others as collaterals of Joginder Singh. The appellant who was arrayed as defendant no. 2, filed a written statement alleging that she along with defendant no. 1/proforma respondent no. 5 were adopted by Simarjit Kaur and during her life time Simarjit Kaur executed a will dated 21.09.1979, in their favour. Respondent no. 5 filed a separate written statement alleging that as she is the adopted daughter of Simarjit Kaur and therefore, entitled to succeed to her estate. After considering the pleadings, the trial court framed issues and called upon parties to lead evidence. Vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar, dismissed the suit by holding that as Rupinder Kaur, respondent no. 5 is the adopted daughter of Simarjit Kaur, she is entitled to succeed to the suit land. The appellant's claim that she is also adopted by Simarjit Kaur, was rejected, as was the will propounded by her. It would be necessary to mention here that the appellant did not file appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. However, legal representatives of the plaintiff, Nirmal Singh, filed an appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The Additional District Judge, Muktsar, vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit by holding that as Rupinder Kaur respondent no. 5, has failed to prove that she was adopted by Simarjit Kaur, the property has R.S.A.No.3394 of 2009 3 devolved upon Nirmal Singh as a collateral of Simarjit Kaur's husband. Counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below have committed serious errors of law. There is sufficient evidence on record, to prove that the appellant was adopted by Simarjit Kaur and that before her demise, Simarjit Kaur executed a will bequeathing her entire property to the appellant and respondent no.5. It is argued that the courts below have misread and ignored material evidence while recording conclusions that are contrary to the evidence on record. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. Counsel for the appellant concedes that the appellant did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court rejecting her plea that she is the adopted daughter of Simarjit Kaur. In this view of the matter, the appeal should be summarily rejected but as the appellant has been heard on merits, it would be appropriate to consider her submissions. The appellant's plea that she was adopted by Simarjit Kaur, was rejected by the trial court as the appellant failed to adduce any evidence cogent or otherwise to prove the adoption. Her claim of ownership based upon the will dated 21.09.1979, was rejected by holding that the will is a suspicious document. Nothing has been urged or pointed out from the findings recorded by the trial court that they suffer from any error. The finding of fact recorded by the trial court therefore, do not call for interference. R.S.A.No.3394 of 2009 4 In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 22nd September, 2009 Shivani Kaushik