RSA No. 455 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 455 of 2005 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Smt. Phulli ......Appellant Versus Munshi Ram and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Kulvir Narwal, Additional AG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction in respect of the estate of Mai Chand, was dismissed. The claim of the plaintiff is based upon the decree dated 28.11.1969 obtained against Jug Lal, brother of Mai Chand, on the basis of presumed date of death of Mai Chand, somewhere in the year 1957. It was, thus, the case of the appellant that the surplus land in the RSA No. 455 of 2005 (2) hands of Jug Lal was by taking into consideration the estate of Mai Chand as that of Jug Lal, whereas the said land could not be taken into consideration, in view of the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1969, as the appellant was declared owner of the estate of Mai Chand. The said claim of the plaintiff has been declined primarily on the basis of mutation No. 1045, wherein Mai Chand is purported to have died on 22.7.1950. The said mutation was found to be produced by the plaintiff on the file. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it is not the case of the defendants in the written statement that Mai Chand has died on 22.7.1950 and that the estate of Mai Chand has been wrongly taken into consideration while determining the holdings of Jug Lal as surplus. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The entire case of the plaintiff is based upon the fact that the estate of Mai Chand could not have been taken into consideration, while determining the surplus land in the hands of Jug Lal. The learned first Appellate Court has relied upon mutation No. 1045 produced by the appellant on record of the trial Court. The argument raised that such document has not been proved was negated for the reason that the document has been produced by the plaintiff alone. Thus, in view of the fact that the death of Mai Chand occurred on 22.7.1950, it was found that the appellant could not he said to have inherited the estate of Mai Chand. It was further found that there was no custom that a RSA No. 455 of 2005 (3) daughter was entitled to inherit the estate of her father in the year 1950. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 11.9.2009 ds