RSA No.2280 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6819-C of 2009 & RSA No.2280 of 2009 Decided on : 04.02.2010 Sube Singh & others ... Appellants versus Ram Sarup & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. S.S.Malik, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1.To be referred to the reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession over the house in dispute. Following questions have been proposed: a) Whether the ld.courts below are justified in decreeing the suit with costs against the appellants- plaintiffs? b) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused with the plaintiff-appellant? c) Whether secondary evidence supported by consequent mutation is reliable peace of evidence or not? d) Whether the compromise in the present RSA No.2280 of 2009 -2- circumstances is a conclusive evidence against the appellants and more reliable then the Will and mutation? Ld. Courts below have found that the appellants have not proved the Will by which they pray for their title on the property in dispute. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that neither any witness was produced nor any person who could attest the signatures of the witnesses on the Will was produced nor any official from the office of the Sub Registrar was produced to prove that the Will was executed in favour of the appellants. Even the original Will was not placed on record. Only certified copy of the Will was placed on record. In these circumstances, the findings of fact that the appellants have not been able to prove their title is not liable to be interfered with. As regards the questions proposed, questions No.(a) & (b) are general questions. As regards question No.(c), no secondary evidence has been led with regard to the Will in question. As regards question No.(d), both the courts below have found that the allegation that the compromise was in fact got executed by obtaining the signatures of the appellant No.1 on blank paper, has not been proved by the appellants. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either based on no evidence or or are based on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. RSA No.2280 of 2009 -3- In these circumstances, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. February 04, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE