RSA No. 269 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA No. 269 of 2008 Date of decision: 06.02.2008 Laxmi Devi ...Appellant Versus Bhoop Singh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav -.- Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Shailender Jain, Advocate for the caveators/respondents -.- Nirmal Yadav, J. (Oral) This is plaintiff's regular second appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon and judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the caveators/respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant states that a perusal of the Will dated 15.05.1991 would go to show that only immovable property was intended to be bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff's three brothers. Learned counsel further contends that the said Will was executed in the year RSA No. 269 of 2008 2 1991, however, the land was acquired and compensation whereof was awarded in the year 1993 and, therefore, the property did not remain immovable, rather, it became movable property in the shape of amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is also contended that since there is no mention about the movable property in the Will, plaintiff being daughter of Man Singh, the testator, is entitled to inherit her share in the movable property of Man Singh. On the other hand, Mr. Mittal, appearing on behalf of the caveators/respondents, submits that in the Will, it has clearly been mentioned by Man Singh, the testator of the Will, that he has married off his daughter and done everything for her and she would have no concern with his property either immovable or movable. Taking into consideration the contents of Will, executed by Man Singh, the intention of the testator is very much clear that he intended his property to be bequeathed in favour of his three sons and he did not intend to give anything to his daughter out of immovable or movable property after his death No ground for interference with the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial questions of law having been arisen, for consideration in the instant appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav) Judge February 06, 2008 mohan