R.S.A.No.120 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.120 of 1986 Date of Decision : 29.7.2009 Leela Wanti ...Appellant Versus Chander Kanta @ Chando and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. D.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff No.3 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, arising out of suit for permanent injunction whereby the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs from the house in dispute, shown by words ABCD. It is the case of the plaintiffs that house in dispute was owned and possessed by Udha Ram, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Udha Ram has been murdered and the plaintiffs as his legal representatives have sought to protect their possession against the defendants, who have no concern with the house in dispute. In reply, it was pointed out that the plaintiffs are not the relatives of Udha Ram and that they have no claim or interest in the property left by Udha Ram deceased. Defendant No.6 use to reside with Udha Ram, who was her real maternal uncle, since the time when she was 6/7 years old. Ram Devi wife of Udha Ram left about 40 years back and never came to reside with Udha Ram. In fact, Udha Ram has executed a R.S.A.No.120 of 1986 2 Will on 12.3.1977 bequeathing his entire moveable and immovable property to defendant No.6. Learned trial Court decreed the suit against defendant Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7, but the appeal has been allowed and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The learned first Appellate Court found the following three questions arising for consideration : (i)Whether the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of Udha Ram and as such entitled to the house in suit? (ii)Whether Udha Ram had executed a valid Will dated March 12, 1977 in favour of defendant-appellant? (iii)Whether the plaintiffs are in peaceful and effective possession of the house in suit and as such entitled to the injunction prayed for by them? The learned first Appellate Court found that though defendant have admitted that Udha Ram was married and had two daughters from his wife, but it was found that his wife has left him about 40 years earlier from his murder and he was also annoyed with the daughters, who were divorced. The question examined was whether the plaintiffs are the wife and daughters of the deceased. The evidence of the plaintiff has not been corroborated. The statement of Hardial Singh (PW-1) does not support the claim of the plaintiff and runs in fact counter to the statements of other witnesses examined by the plaintiffs. Similarly, the statements of Daulat Singh (PW-4), Prabh Dayal (PW-5) and Asha Nand (PW-6) was found to be not relevant. Thus, a finding was returned that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are legal heirs of Udha Ram deceased. On issue No.2, it was found that the Will dated 12.3.1977 R.S.A.No.120 of 1986 3 (Ex.D-1) is proved to be executed on the basis of statement of attesting witness R.K.Khanna (DW-2). DW-1 is Mohan Lal Mehra, son of scribe Manohar Lal Mehra, Advocate, who had died on 1.2.1981. Defendant No.6 had appeared as DW-8, whose statement is corroborated by Om Parkash (DW-7), who is not only a neighbourer but a Principal of local School. In view of the said findings and the statement of the plaintiff in the cross-examination that the defendant No.6 is in possession of the portion of the house, the appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are not the correct findings. Inferences drawn by the learned first Appellate Court are not the possible inferences, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court is not sustainable. However, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The inferences drawn by the learned first Appellate Court are the possible inferences on the basis of appreciation of evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out that any evidence has been misread. The findings recorded on the basis of evidence are findings of fact. Such findings of fact cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence alone. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 29.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE