R.S.A No. 1574 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1574 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : April 27, 2010 Ran Singh and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Lab Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellants. *** 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 the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondents to the effect that they have inherited the property of their mother Soma Devi to the exclusion of the appellants. The case of the respondents was that they were the real sons of Soma Devi and the appellants were their step brothers and, therefore, could not inherit the property of their mother. The lower appellate Court relied upon a Will made by the father of Soma Devi wherein he described that his daughter had four sons viz the three respondents and one brother. On the R.S.A No. 1574 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: basis of this registered Will and the statement got recorded by a son of one of the appellants also to the same effect, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the respondents alone would inherit the property of Soma Devi. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the defendants-appellants have a right in the property left by Soma Devi ? b) Whether the non reference of the defendants- appellant in the Will executed way back in the year 1973 by the father of Soma Devi disentitle the defendant appellant to have share in the property left by Soma Devi ? c) Whether mis-reading of evidence and mis- appreciation of evidence is a substantial question of law to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court 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 CPC. Consequently, 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 ) April 27, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1574 of 2010 (O&M) ::3::