RSA No.2014 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2014 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:28.07.2010. Ram Partap ...Appellant Versus Pat Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. It is plaintiff's second appeal. The dispute is with regard to the estate of deceased Binja who died issueless on 18.04.1985. Plaintiff has claimed that he has become owner of 21 Kanals 12 marlas of land i.e. 5/16 shares and Reshma widow of Bhup Singh to the extent of 12 Kanals 19 Marlas of land i.e. 3/16 shares in total land measuring 69 Kanals 02 Marlas comprised in Sq. No.22 Killa Nos.4/2 (4-19), 7(7-8), 14(7-8), 17(7-8), Sq. No.175 Killa No.6(4- 11), 14(3-15), 15(6-2) and Sq. No.176 Killa No.9(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(5- 18), 12(5-13) of Khewat No.98 Khatauni No.179 (Kittas-11), situated in village Gigorani, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that by virtue of Will No.91 dated 05.11.1982 (Ex.P1) the aforestated land RSA No.2014 of 2010 (O&M) -2- was not bequeathed by Binja, rather as per said Will he had given 1/4th share to the plaintiff, 1/8th share to his wife Kamla and 1/8th share to Reshma widow of Bhup Singh in the land falling in Khewat No.2 Khatauni No.3-4 measuring 166 Kanals 18 Marlas. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have committed an error of law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the land mentioned in the plaint is not a part of the Will. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also seen the Will (Ex.P1) in which the land referred to above is conspicuous by its absence. Thus, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree passed of both the Courts below by which suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. Since no substantial question of law has been raised as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. July 28, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE