RSA No. 1324 of 2003 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 18 , 2009 1. RSA No.1324 of 2003 (O&M) Jagmail Kaur and another ...... Appellants Versus Kirpal Kaur and another ...... Respondents 2. RSA No.1371 of 2003 (O&M) Jagmail Kaur and another ...... Appellants Versus Jagdish Singh and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari **** Present: Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Venu Gopal Johar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 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? RSA No. 1324 of 2003 (O&M) 2 Ajay Tewari, J. These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the appellants challenging the decree suffered by Mehar Singh in favour of his son on the ground that the property was ancestral in his hands and ,therefore, he could not suffer the decree. The respondents apart from the decree also relied on the will dated 1.2.83. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the will dated 1.12.83 was validly executed in favour of Jagan Nath (father of respondent Jagdish Singh). The trial Court even while holding that the property was ancestral dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation since the decree was suffered on 28.3.1985 but the suit was filed only in 1997 and it was found that the appellants had knowledge of the same. The appellants filed an appeal on the question of limitation while the contesting respondents filed cross objections with regard to the finding of the nature of the property. The learned lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and accepted the cross objections filed by the respondents holding that the property was self acquired. Hence the present appeals. The following questions have been proposed:- A) Whether the suit property was ancestral joint Hindu family Coparcenary in the hands of Mehar Singh and thus could he suffer a collusive decree with regard thereto in favour of Jagan Nath? B) Whether the decree dated 28.3.1985was illegal, null and void on account of non registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act? C) Whether Jagan Nath had any pre-existing right in the suit RSA No. 1324 of 2003 (O&M) 3 property and thus the decree dated 28.3.1985 did not require any registration? D) Whether the will No.66 dated 1.12.1983 could be held to have been duly and validly executed and attested in terms of Section 63 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act respectively, especially when both the attesting witnesses of the Will were dead and Scribe and Sub Registrar had no personal knowledge vis-a-vis them ? E) Whether the suit filed by the appellants/plaijntiffs could be held to have been time barred? With regard to the questions proposed it would be seen that question No. (D) which relates to the will is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings and the evidence and has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once question No. (D) is held against the appellants, their suit has to fail since the net effect would be that the property was validly transferred in the name of Jagan Nath. Consequently questions No. (A),(B),(C), and (E) become academic. Thus these appeals as well as the applications for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 18, 2009 sunita