IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 216 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : January 28, 2008 Fateh Singh ....Appellant versus Suresh Kumar alias Suresh Dass and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. J.D.Gautam, Advocate for the appellant Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by un-successful plaintiff is directed against judgment and decree dated 10.4.2004 passed by learned trial court whereby a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 600, Khatauni No. 719, Khasra No. 25/26(0-13) 24/6/1(2-03) and other suit property as mentioned in the heading of the decree drawn by learned trial court, was dismissed. Thereafter appeal filed by the appellants i.e. the LRs of Smt. Gulab Kaur was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. The noticeable point of argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that, in fact, aforesaid property was earlier owned and possessed by one Bhagwan Dass who died issue-less in the year 1965 leaving behind Regular Second Appeal No. 216 of 2008 (O&M) -2- his sister Gulab Kaur as his only successor. So the appellant, who is now the LR of said Smt. Gulab Kaur is entitled to be declared as owner of the suit property left behind by Bhagwan Dass who was the real brother of his mother Smt. Gulab Kaur. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the material placed on the file, it is apparent that Gulab Kaur, mother of the appellant, woke up after a slumber of more than 25 years when she challenged the mutation sanctioned in the year 1965, by filing a suit in the year 1994. At the first place, she was unable to explain such a long delay and at the same time, there are concurrent findings of the courts below that Gulab Kaur herself could not be proved to be the sister of Bhagwan Dass, whose property is being now claimed by the appellant. The findings arrived in this regard by the courts below are neither perverse nor unreasonable. Thus, no interference is called for in this appeal. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Since the main appeal is dismissed on merits, so no order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. ( Pritam Pal ) January 28, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'