R. S. A. No. 2403 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2403 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 06, 2011 Santra Devi .... Appellant Vs. Angoori Devi and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by Santra Devi – defendant no.1 having lost in both the courts below. Suit was filed by respondent no.1 – plaintiff Angoori Devi against defendant no.1 – appellant and defendant no.2 – Krishan Kumar. It is not disputed that plaintiff is mother of Hari Kishan. However, defendant no.1 claimed herself to be widow of Hari Kishan (since deceased). The plaintiff alleged that she is sole heir of Hari Kishan being his mother. It was pleaded that defendant no.1 is not widow of Hari Kishan. Sale of suit property belonging to Hari Kishan (since deceased) by defendant no.1 in R. S. A. No. 2403 of 2010 2 favour of defendant no.2 was also challenged in the suit. Other reliefs were also claimed. Defendants alleged that defendant no.1 is widow of deceased Hari Kishan and has, therefore, inherited half share in property and inheritance mutation of Hari Kishan has rightly been sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 – appellant. It was pleaded that defendant no.1 was married with Hari Kishan on 11.04.2001 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was also pleaded that previous marriage of defendant no.1 with Roshan Lal stood dissolved in brotherhood Panchayat as per custom. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no.1 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that plaintiff-respondent no.1 herself has been alleging defendant no.1-appellant to be wife of Hari Kishan in various documents and even in judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed in the civil suit filed by the appellant herein, she was R. S. A. No. 2403 of 2010 3 held to be wife of Hari Kishan. It was accordingly contended that finding of the courts below to the contrary is perverse and illegal. I have carefully considered the contention, which, on first blush, appears to be very attractive, but on careful scrutiny, the contention is found to be completely devoid of merit. Appellant had filed divorce petition No.39 of 2001 against her first husband Roshan Lal. The said divorce petition was dismissed on 01.05.2001. Consequently, claim of defendant no.1 that her marriage with Roshan Lal stood dissolved in Khap Panchayat on 27.09.2000 and that the appellant married with Hari Kishan on 11.04.2001, cannot be accepted. The appellant admitted that she was earlier married with Roshan Lal in the year 1995. Dismissal of divorce petition filed by appellant against Roshan Lal would depict that marriage between appellant and Roshan Lal was not dissolved. The divorce petition was dismissed on 01.05.2001. It would depict that marriage of appellant with Roshan Lal was subsisting till then. Consequently, alleged marriage of appellant with Hari Kishan on 11.04.2001 was null and void having been performed during the subsistence of appellant's marriage with Roshan Lal, who was also alive. Consequently, it has been rightly held by the courts below that appellant is not legally wedded wife of Hari Kishan, notwithstanding that appellant was depicted to be wife of Hari Kishan in some documents. Alleged marriage of appellant with Hari Kishan was null and void. Consequently, appellant cannot be said to be one of the legal R. S. A. No. 2403 of 2010 4 heirs of Hari Kishan. On the other hand, respondent no.1-plaintiff being mother of Hari Kishan, is his sole Class-I legal heir. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity, in concurrent finding recorded by the courts below against the appellant. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The instant appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 06, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE