C.M.No.14323-C of 2011 in RSA No.2030 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.14323-C of 2011 in RSA No.2030 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 22, 2011 Jai Parkash and another .....Appellants v. Sanjeet and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for Mr.Ajit Malik, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14323-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 30.8.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is restored. Registry is directed to register the appeal at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.5697-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 23 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.2030 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 7.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District C.M.No.14323-C of 2011 in RSA No.2030 of 2011(O&M) -2- Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 1.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, vide which suit filed by respondent- plaintiff was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, the dispute is regarding property of Om Singh. Respondent-plaintiff, namely, Om Parkash, is one of the sons of Om Singh. Respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking right in the property in dispute under Hindu Succession Act on the basis of natural succession to the extent of 1/9th share and impugned the Will, allegedly executed by his father Om Singh. Present appellants-defendants have failed to prove the Will, allegedly executed in their favour by their father. The Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Moreover, father of respondent- plaintiff could not legally execute the Will regarding property in dispute in favour of present appellants, as admittedly, property in dispute forms part of ancestral property qua the parties of the suit and hence, respondent-plaintiff being one of the sons of Om Singh, acquired right since birth in the property in dispute and hence, he was having no right to execute the Will in favour of two of his sons excluding the respondent-plaintiff. 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 learned 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 C.M.No.14323-C of 2011 in RSA No.2030 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 22.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge