RSA No.3049 of 2004 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 11.03.2008. Karamjit Singh and others ... Appellants Versus Makhan Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RC Dogra, Senior Advocate,with Mr.C.L.Pawar, Advocate,for the appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Unsuccessful plaintiffs, appellants herein have preferred this appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the Will executed by Baldev Singh bequeathing his entire property in the names of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.6 and 7 to the extent of half share, Sarabdial Singh uncle of the plaintiffs to the extent of half share and Raghbir Singh, defendant No.5, was disinherited under the Will. The plaintiffs also challenged the mortgage deed dated 10.11.1992 and the sale deed dated 27.01.1983, executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4, as null and void, without consideration and also on the ground that it was not voluntary act as defendant No.5 was an alcoholic and these documents were taken RSA No.3049 of 2004 -2- under the influence of liquor. On the basis of the evidence recorded, the learned trial Court decided issue Nos.1,2,4 and 5 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. Issue No.3 regarding the validity of the mortgage deed and sale deed was decided in favour of the defendants. Consequently,the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. An appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2001 of the learned trial Court, also remained unsuccessful and came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide his judgment and decree dated 24.03.2004. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently upheld the validity of the mortgage deed and the sale deed referred to above. However, the learned Courts below have not accepted the Will on the ground that the same has not been produced in the Court, though the Will is stated to be a registered document. In the absence of the Will, defendant No.5 is stated to be entitled to inherit the estate along with other legal heirs being one of the legal heirs of deceased Baldev Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the parties. Since there are concurrent findings of fact on record, I find no reason to interfere with the same. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 11.03.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO