RSA No. 3764 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 11476-C of 2009 and RSA No. 3764 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: October 20, 2009 Nirmal Singh ...... Appellant Versus Smt. Raj Kumari ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate with Mr. Jag Nahar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 11476-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 191 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 3764 of 2009(O&M) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that, being an heir of Pyare Lal, she was also entitled to inherit the property left behind by him along with the appellant-her brother. The appellant denied his relationship and the RSA No. 3764 of 2009 (O&M) 2 parentage of the respondent. The learned trial Court dismissed her suit on the ground that the birth certificate tendered by her in evidence was not admissible. The learned lower Appellate Court, however, took the same into consideration along with other evidence and held her to be a daughter of Pyare Lal. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the findings of the first appellate court are perverse,misconceived and contrary to law? ii)Whether the first appellate court has misread and misinterpreted the invalid evidence? iii)Whether the first appellate court has committed grave error by admitting a document whose presumption stand rebutted by cogent evidence? iv)Whether the first appellate court has committed grave error by reading into evidence marked documents which are not proved as per Evidence act? v) Whether the first appellate court was justified in decreeing a hopelessly time barred suit? It would be seen that questions No. (i) to (iv) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. As regards question No. (v), in my opinion the present suit being a suit for possession on the basis of title could not be held to be barred by limitation. Additionally learned counsel has argued that out of the eight issues struck by learned trial Court, learned lower Appellate Court has touched only three issues and that since the learned lower Appellate Court did not return findings on the remaining five issues , the judgment is vitiated RSA No. 3764 of 2009 (O&M) 3 as per Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. In my opinion learned lower Appellate Court applied his mind to the` seminal question of the relationship between the parties in dispute. Even if there may be an omission to give findings on peripheral issues the same would not render the judgment so illegal as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. Consequently the appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 20, 2009 sunita