RSA No.1640 of 2008 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:15.07.2008. Baldev Singh and others ... Appellants Versus Charanjit Kaur and others ... Respondents. CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.AS Jatana, Advocate, for the appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length. This is defendants Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. The respondents filed a suit for recovery against the appellants herein claiming damages for causing death of Amarjit Singh @ Jaspal Singh who was allegedly murdered by the appellants herein. The respondents claimed an amount of Rs.7,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The appellants besides denying the incident also pleaded that Jaspal Singh and Amarjit Singh are two different persons and the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Amarjit Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were RSA No.1640 of 2008 (O&M) -2- framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery and interest as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3-A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as mutation in favour of the defendants No.3 (a) to 3 ( c) pertaining to suit land, illegal, null and void? OPP 3-B. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 3-C. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? OPP 3-D. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3.E. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. Both the parties led their respective evidence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court passed a decreed for Rs.3 lacs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the appellants herein. The learned trial Court has rendered a specific finding that Amarjit Singh alias Jaspal Singh was murdered. The appeal preferred therefrom by the appellants here-in-above also resulted in dismissal vide judgment and decree dated RSA No.1640 of 2008 (O&M) -3- 09.01.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Amarjit Singh and Jaspal Singh are two different persons and the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Amarjit Singh. It is contended that the father of the deceased in the FIR has stated that he has two sons, namely, Amarjit Singh and Jaspal Singh and they are serving in different departments. Both the learned Courts below, however, did not accept this contention, particularly, in view of the admission of the defendants. It has been mentioned in the impugned judgment that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have admitted paragraph 1 of the plaint wherein the relationship of the plaintiff with Amarjit Singh @ Jaspal Singh has been mentioned. It has also been observed that no material has been placed on record to prove that Amarjit Singh and Jaspal Singh were two different persons. Even during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has tried to rely upon the First Information Report and also the Ration Card, however, no evidence/witness has been brought on record to establish that they were two different persons. There is concurrent findings of fact by the learned Courts below that Amarjit Singh and Jaspal Singh was the same person who was murdered. No substantial question of law arises. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 15.07.2007. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO