1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 154 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9th November, 2011 Aman Kumar Appellant Versus Ram Piara and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.R.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Plaintiff Udho Ram filed a suit for declaration and possession with respect to the suit land. The same stands dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una, District Una, in Civil Suit No.240 of 2001, titled as Udho Ram vs. Amin Chand and others, which stands affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Una, in terms of judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2009, titled as Udho Ram vs. Shri Ram Piara and others. 2. This is the plaintiff’s Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Procedure, 1908, assailing concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in terms of judgment and decree referred to hereinabove. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Sh. Devnoo bequeathed limited right of 1/3rd share of the suit land in favour of Bhagti vide Will dated 28.6.1932, if so, to what effect? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether after the death of Smt. Bhagti the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 6 and mutation dated 10.6.1992 are illegal, null and void? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata under Section 11 CPC? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit? OPD 4. Having closely scrutinizing the record, I am of the considered view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3 5. Plaintiff in fact has taken a dishonest plea. According to him, the land in question was originally owned by Shri Devnoo, who sold 2/3rd of his share to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. With regard to 1/3rd share (suit land) Shri Devnoo executed a Will dated 28.6.1932 in favour of his sister Smt. Bhagti. After death of Shri Devnoo, on the strength of the said Will, Smt. Bhagti was recorded as owner and entry of mutation dated 20.5.1938 was also effected. However, it is urged that after death of Smt. Bhagti, land was to revert back to the plaintiff for the reason that Smt. Bhagti had a limited right of maintenance and not an exclusive right of ownership in the suit land. Plaintiff being successor-in-interest of Shri Devnoo was to inherit the same. 6. It is not in dispute that defendants Amin Chand and Gopi are the real brother-in law (brother of husband of Smt. Bhagti) of deceased Smt. Bhagti. Now after her death, Amin Chand and Gopi, as legal heirs got the property mutated in their name on 22.4.1992 and further sold it to defendant Gauri Chand vide registered sale deed and mutation in that regard was also attested on 10.6.1992. 7. Courts below have concurrently held that the stand taken by the plaintiff, that Smt. Bhagti had a limited right in the estate of Devnoo is factually incorrect. Contents of the document have been 4 correctly appreciated. I find no error, in the findings arrived at by the Courts below in this regard, more so, for the reason that plaintiff himself had set up a registered Will dated 2.3.1981 executed by Smt. Bhagti in favour of Sita Devi and Vaidya (wife and daughter of the plaintiff), which undisputedly was subsequently cancelled by a registered document on 15.6.1988. 8. Plaintiff’s contention that in spite of the property being mutated in the name of defendants Amin Chand and Gopi, he continued to occupy and possess the suit property has been rejected by the Courts below and in my view correctly. There is nothing on record to rebut the presumptions of entries of mutation recording Smt. Bhagi, Amin Chand, Gopi and finally Guari Nand as owner in possession of the suit land. Order of mutation does not record Bhagti to have inherited limited interest. Plaintiff has been litigating on false claim for over a decade. Even in the past he unsuccessfully tried his luck in getting the order of mutation set aside. 9. Concurrent of findings of fact cannot be said to be perverse, erroneous warranting interference by the Court. 10. In view of the same, present appeal is dismissed. No costs. 21st November, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.