R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 Date of decision : September 01, 2009 Krishan and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Smt. Sushila and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 for declaration that they were co-owners of the land in dispute and in joint possession with the appellants. The learned lower appellate Court on a conspectus of the entire evidence found that respondents No.1 to 4 were in fact the widow and children of deceased-Prabhu. The case of the appellants on the other hand was that Prabhu had died unmarried and issueless. R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 ::2:: The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the reversal of findings of the trial Court by the first appellate Court is a clear misreading of evidence ? ii) Whether the plaintiffs have discharged their onus to prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Prabhu? iii) Whether the evidence produced by the plaintiffs is sufficient to prove the identity of the plaintiffs ? iv) Whether the plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to prove that Shanti was legally married wife of deceased Prabhu ? v) Whether the findings of complete ouster recorded by the trial Court have been wrongly upset by the first appellate Court by misreading of evidence ? vi) Whether the findings recorded by the first appellate Court on the question of limitation is not legally sustainable ? vii) Whether oral evidence of PW Manbhawati who herself suffered a decree in favour of Suraj Bhan, is liable to be discarded ?” It would be seen that questions No.(i) to (v) and (vii) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the findings and the evidence recorded on these questions by the learned lower appellate Court. I, however, regret my inability to agree with the contentions that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 ::3:: With regard to question No. (vi), the same is a question of law. I find that this question has actually been decided by the learned appellate Court by holding that respondents No.1 to 4 had filed a suit on the basis of title and, thus, was within limitation. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 01, 2009. JUDGE `kk'