R.S.A. No. 444 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 444 of 2006 Date of Decision:17.3.2009 Lila Singh and others .....Appellants versus Dhan Kaur and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala dated 18.1.2000 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she being sister of deceased Gurbachan Singh was his legal heir and as such was owner of 1/4th share of the land measuring 63 kanals 7 marlas, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint situated at village Pakhoke, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) and mutation No. 4577 sanctioned in favour of the defendants was illegal, null and R.S.A. No. 444 of 2006 -2- void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating any part of the suit land was also sought. It was pleaded that she is daughter of Natha Singh and her brothers, namely, Gurdial Singh, Sampuran Singh, Gurdev Singh and Gurbachan Singh had died. She is the real sister of Gurbachan Singh who died unmarried and issueless on 20.10.1991 and she being the only legal heir was entitled to inherit the suit land left behind by Gurbachan Singh. It was further pleaded that the defendants had propounded a forged and fabricated Will allegedly executed by Gurbachan Singh in their favour and had got mutation No.4577 sanctioned in their favour which was not binding on her rights. According to the plaintiff, the defendants on the basis of wrong mutation wanted to interfere in her possession over the suit land to which they had got no right. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit her claim but they refused to do so which necessitated her to file the suit, as mentioned above. Later on, the relief for joint possession was also claimed by the plaintiff by amending the suit. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 5 contested the suit and filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the pedigree table given in the plaint was not correct as Natha Singh had got four sons, namely, Gurdial Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Sampuran Singh and Gurdev Singh, and three daughters, namely, Dhan Kaur (plaintiff), Partap Kaur and Nihal Kaur. It was further pleaded that Gurbachan Singh was residing with the answering defendants and they used to look after and serve him and at the time of his death, his last rites were performed by them. According R.S.A. No. 444 of 2006 -3- to the answering defendants, Gurbachan Singh in lieu of the services rendered by them and their family members, out of his free will, without any kind of coercion or inducement had executed an unregistered Will on 16.9.1991 in their favour. On the basis of the said Will, the suit land was rightly mutated in their favour and the plaintiff had got no right or concern with the same. It was also pleaded that the litigation was going on between the plaintiff and Gurbachan Singh and she had filed a suit against Gurbachan Singh which was dismissed by the trial court on 17.3.1987 and the appeal thereto was also dismissed on 17.2.1989. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The other defendants were proceeded against exparte. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the Will dated 16.9.1991 was not legal and valid one and the mutation sanctioned on the basis thereof was null and void and was, therefore, not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was further held that the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share being share of Gurbachan Singh deceased. Accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.2000 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendants No.1 to 7 approached the lower appellant Court which vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record with his assistance. R.S.A. No. 444 of 2006 -4- Learned counsel for the appellants has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below but the same is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, he could not point out any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. Both the Courts have returned concurrent findings of fact that the Will dated 16.9.1991 propounded by the contesting defendants was never executed by Gurbachan Singh in their favour and the mutation sanctioned on the basis thereof was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and these findings do not call for any interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. March 17, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE