C. R. No. 2618 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2618 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 22, 2009 Jasvir Kaur and others .... Petitioners Vs. Harjinder Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by objectors, who have remained unsuccessful in the Executing Court and the Appellate Court. Suit filed by Harjinder Singh-respondent no.1 against Gurdarshan Singh-respondent no.2 for specific performance of the agreement to sell the suit land was decreed. In execution petition, sale deed was also executed in favour of respondent no.1. The petitioners, who are sisters of respondent no.2 judgment debtor, filed a suit along with their mother against respondent no.2 alleging that Joginder Singh was owner of the suit land and on his death, the petitioners and respondent no.2 and their mother being daughters, son and widow respectively of Joginder Singh inherited the suit land in equal shares i.e. 1/5th share each. The said suit was decreed by the trial court and the decree was upheld by First Appellate C. R. No. 2618 of 2009 2 Court as well as by this Court in R. S. A. No. 1776 of 2006 titled Gurdarshan Singh vs. Gurdial Kaur, decided on 31.07.2000 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners filed objections in the execution petition alleging that they are owners of the suit land to the extent of 3/5th share. Their plea has been negatived by both the courts below. Feeling aggrieved, the objectors have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Both the courts below have held that decree obtained by the petitioners along with their mother against judgment debtor-respondent no.2 has been obtained by fraud to defeat the rights of decree holder- respondent no.1. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below against the petitioners. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is limited as compared to Regular Second Appeal (RSA). Even in RSA, interference can be made only on substantial question of law. In the instant case, no substantial question of law arises for determination and the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It has to be noticed that respondent no.2-judgment debtor claimed the inheritance of entire property from his father Joginder Singh on the basis of Will. Mutation on the basis of said Will was sanctioned after the petitioners and their mother made statement before the Revenue Officer admitting the said Will. The said statement has not been proved to be wrong in any manner by the petitioners in the instant case. The petitioners admitted the said Will and consequently, mutation was sanctioned in favour of respondent no.2, who thereafter entered into agreement with respondent no.1. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be permitted to take an C. R. No. 2618 of 2009 3 about turn and plead that there was no Will in favour of respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically contended that suit filed by the petitioner and their mother against respondent no.2 stands decreed and the decree has been upheld by this Court in Second Appeal. However, contest by respondent no.2 in the said suit filed by petitioners and their mother was a fake contest because respondent no.2 did not produce the Will in his defence in the said case, although entire claim of respondent no.2 was based on the said Will. It is thus manifest that contest in the said suit was a fake contest. On the other hand, the said suit was filed during the pendency of the suit instituted by respondent no.1, in which the decree under execution was passed. In view of the above, there is no escape from the conclusion that the objections filed by the petitioners in the execution petition are based on dishonesty and fraud so as to deprive respondent no.1 of his rights under the decree passed against respondent no.2, who is in collusion with the petitioners. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 22, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE