IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4900 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2011. Amarjit Kaur and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Gurmail Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 08.12.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala vide which suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. RSA No.4900 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, parties are closely related. Plaintiff and respondent-defendant no.2 are real brothers. Dispute is regarding property of mother of plaintiff and respondent no.2. Though she initially executed a Will regarding property in dispute in favour of both of her sons and however, during her life time, she executed a sale deed in favour of respondent- defendant no.1 wife of respondent-defendant no.2. The sale deed has been challenged in the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs on the ground that the same is a Sham transaction and that mother of present appellant-plaintiff was not in sound disposing state of mind and that sale deed is also without consideration. However, on appreciation of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by appellant- plaintiff was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiff is that payment of consideration of `3,45,000/- has not been made by respondents-defendants at the time of execution of sale deed, Ex.D1. However, the sale deed is a registered one. The same has also been duly proved. Though amount was not paid before Sub-Registrar and however, merely on this ground, it cannot be said that recital in the sale deed is false. Mother of plaintiff and respondent no.2 remained alive for a period of one year after execution of sale deed and she never challenged the said sale deed. 2 RSA No.4900 of 2010 Even possession of the respondents-defendants over the property in dispute is also proved. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3