R.S.A No. 4721 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 4721 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : March 11, 2010 Smt. Suman ...... Appellant (s) v. Laxmi Narain and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Pal, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 for declaration that they had become owners of the land in dispute by virtue of release deed executed in their favour by the husband of the appellant and brother of proforma respondent No.2. The plaintiffs further challenged the mutation in favour of the appellant. In the written statement, the appellant denied the factum of release deed saying that it was not an act of free volition by her husband. Further, proforma respondent No.2 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. R.S.A No. 4721 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: Both the Courts below accepted the validity of the release deed holding that this was by way of sale. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 was decreed. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether ancestral and coparcenary property can be given by way of release deed without making any arrangement for the maintenance of the widow being sole surviving member and Class-I legal heir ? ii) Whether widow of a deceased, being Class-I heir, is entitled for maintenance from the ancestral property of her husband ? Iii) Whether there is a grave misreading of the evidence by the learned Courts below ? iv) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been done to the appellant ?” Both the Courts below have held that doctrine of widow's interest would be applicable in the case of a consent decree but not in the case of a sale. The lower appellate Court has further held that since Som Dutt left behind no male issue, the property ceased to be co-parcenary and ancestral and he became absolute owner thereof. Both the Courts below also found that no fraud or misrepresentation was proved. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the R.S.A No. 4721 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: CPC. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, 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 ) March 11, 2010. JUDGE `kk'