IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2241 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision: 17.3.2009 Krishan Nath ......Appellant Versus Yogi Amar Nath Charitable Trust and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.5450-C of 2006 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 84 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2241 of 2006 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the property in dispute on the basis of Will dated 12.5.1989 executed by Yogi Amar Nath who was the exclusive owner of the property in dispute, has been dismissed. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellant failed to prove that the suit property was the personal property of deceased Yogi Amar Nath which he could alienate by way of Will dated 12.5.1989 in his favour. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before this Court that in fact the sale deed dated 14.12.1983 vide which the property was purchased by Yogi Amar Nath was not traceable earlier and RSA No.2241 of 2006(O&M) -2- now the same has been sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence vide CM No.5451-C of 2006 and thus, it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed and the accompanying document may be considered. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no ground to allow this application for additional evidence at this stage as it is the case of the appellant himself from the very beginning that Yogi Amar Nath was the exclusive owner of the property in dispute and he could alienate the same in any manner yet he has failed to prove his ownership. I find no ground to allow this application at such a belated stage. Therefore, the same is rejected. Since there is no evidence to prove the contention of the appellant that Yogi Amar Nath was the owner of the property in dispute in his own right, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE