R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 Vijay Kumari ...Appellant. Versus Romesh Kumar and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ranjot Singh, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of three appeals being RSA Nos. 1684, 1746 and 1906 of 2007 as these are between the same parties and arise from one and the same judgment and common questions of facts are involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being taken from RSA No. 1684 of 2007. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she being one of the four legal heirs of Ruldu Ram was owner in possession of 1/4th share of the land bearing khasra Nos. 71//15/1, 16, 17, 24, 25, 82//2, 3 and 334, khewat Nos. 38, 40, khatauni Nos. 52, 54 situated at village Daulatpura Niwan, Tehsil and District Moga as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). In the alternative, she had also sought a decree for R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -2- possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that Ruldu Ram alias Roop Chand was the owner of the suit land and after his death, the same was inherited by the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3, being his daughters, widow and son, in equal shares, and the mutation to that effect was sanctioned in their favour. According to the plaintiff, when she went to the village to collect her share in the suit land, her brother, defendant No.1, refused to pay the same and claimed that he was the sole owner of the suit land. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to admit her claim but he failed to pay any heed to her request which gave rise to the filing of the suit, as mentioned above. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 3 by a joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections including one that the plaintiff was not natural or adopted daughter of Ruldu Ram, the original owner of the suit land. It was pleaded that Ruldu Ram predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 3 died on 2.2.1983 and during his life time, he executed a Will dated 9.8.1982 in favour of defendant No.1 and after the death of Ruldu Ram, the case regarding his inheritance was decided in favour of defendant No.1 by the revenue court wherein, the plaintiff and her counsel admitted the factum and validity of the Will. On the basis thereof, the mutation dated 27.3.1987 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had got no concern with the suit land as she was the daughter of Harbans Lal and Tirtho. Said Tirtho was the real sister of deceased Ruldu Ram and as she had six daughters including the plaintiff, the plaintiff used to live in the house of Ruldu Ram, her maternal uncle. It was further pleaded that she had concealed the R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -3- material fact regarding the execution of the Will dated 9.8.1982 in favour of defendant No.1 as she herself had given an affidavit expressing no objection to the Will. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. Defendant No.4 in his separate written statement besides admitting the claim of the defendants pleaded that he was bonafide purchaser of the land measuring 10 marlas from Romesh Kumar, Sohan Devi, Amar Nath, Suhagwanti and Tirtho vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.1989 for a sale consideration of Rs.5000/- and on the basis thereof, the mutation was sanctioned in his favour. According to defendant No.4, he had raised a construction and had been owner in possession of the same. Defendants No.1 to 3 had also filed a counter-claim pleading that in case execution of the Will dated 9.8.1982 by Ruldu Ram in favour of defendant No.1, was not proved, then they were entitled to inherit in equal shares the land left by Ruldu Ram. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:- “1. Whether Ruldu Ram executed a legal and valid Will on 9.8.1982 in favour of defendant No.1, if so effects thereof? OPD 2. Whether counter claim filed by defendant is in order? OPD 3. Whether Vijay Kumari is daughter of Ruldu Ram deceased? OPP 4. Whether suit is time barred? OPD R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -4- 5. Whether suit is improperly valued? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence while deciding issue No.3 against the plaintiff, held that she had failed to prove that she was the real daughter of Ruldu Ram. Issue No.1 was decided against defendants No.1 to 3 holding that the due and valid execution of the Will dated 9.8.1982 had not been proved. The trial court while deciding issue No.2 in favour of the defendants held that defendants No.1 to 3 being the natural heirs were entitled to inherit the land of Ruldu Ram in equal shares, i.e. 1/3rd share each. Further, issues No.4 and 5 were decided against the defendants being not pressed. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.1.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter-claim filed by defendants No.1 to 3 holding them the owners and in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share each out of the suit land. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed two appeals whereas defendant No.1 filed cross objection assailing the findings of the trial court on issues No.1, 4 and 5. The lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 dismissed both the appeals filed by the plaintiff and accepted the cross-objections filed by defendant No.1. While setting aside the findings of the trial court on issue No.1, the lower appellate court held that Ruldu Ram executed the valid Will dated 9.8.1982 in favour of defendant No.1 and on the basis thereof he was exclusive owner of the estate of Ruldu Ram. Hence, these three appeals have been filed by the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -5- I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. In this case, the fate of the claim of the plaintiff hinges on the sole question – whether she is daughter of Ruldu Ram as she has been claiming share by way of succession in the estate of said Ruldu Ram. The plaintiff did not lead any documentary evidence to prove this fact and her own oral statement in this regard was not adequately supported by the other witnesses, examined by her in this regard. Therefore, the Courts below in view of the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record had rightly come to a conclusion that the plaintiff was not the daughter of deceased Ruldu Ram. Further, while accepting the cross-objections of defendant No.1, the lower appellate court held that the Will dated 9.8.1982 executed by Ruldu Ram in favour of defendant No.1 was a legal and valid document. No fault could be shown by the learned counsel in the conclusions arrived at by the lower appellate court which may warrant interference by this Court except a valient effort to reappreciate the evidence so as to differ with the evidence based and reasoned findings recorded by the lower appellate court, which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no misreading and misappreciation of any evidence available on record and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from perversity. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arise in these appeals for determination by this Court particularly when the courts below under issue No.3 had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Ruldu Ram. R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -6- Accordingly, finding no merit in these appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. December 10, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1746 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 Vijay Kumari ...Appellant. Versus Romesh Kumar and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ranjot Singh, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see separate judgment of even date recorded in RSA No. 1684 of 2007 (Vijay Kumari Vs. Romesh Kumar and others). December 12, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE R.S.A. No. 1684 of 2007 -8- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1906 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.12.2008 Vijay Kumari ...Appellant. Versus Romesh Kumar and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ranjot Singh, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal is dismissed. For reasons, see separate judgment of even date recorded in RSA No. 1684 of 2007 (Vijay Kumari Vs. Romesh Kumar and others). December 12, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE