349 9 3 J S 4 RSA No 3852 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT I PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Cl IANDIGARH RSA No3852 of 20080ceMl lliItc ofdecision 002010 Ll1 BaljitSingh Appellant 0 versus r I Bachan and others Z CORAM 1 HONBLE MRJUSTICE KCPIJRI r5 Present Mr RNlvloudgilAdvocate tor tllc Mr Sumir Rathore Advocate tor me Mr SumeetGoel Advocate lor llIe respondentNo1 Z Mr SKShanna Advocale for rcsjllltldeilt No e KeCPURI Je This is an appealdirccted by i againstthe judgmentand decree dated 2392008 passedly Ms HarpreetKaur Randhawa Additional District JudgeRupntigar Ilide which the appeal preferred bythe againslthejudgillelltand decree dated 32005 passcdby Shri Arun Kumar AggarlvillClvil JudgeOunior DivisionlRoparwas dismissed Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Cl C 350 r 1 RSA No3852 of 2008 2 Plaintiffhas flled lllis suitthroughhis attorneyJaswantSingh for as owner of Illc Ilrollerlies as mentionedin theheadnote of theplaintandfor declarationlhiil he is the sole owner in of one house as mentionedin the plaintllcingthe sole survivingmemberof Joint HinduFamilyaftersettingisillc Ille sale deed dated 1591986 executled 111 favour of defendantNo antl lhc Will dated281999 executed in favour W t of defendantNo l by Dwarki l levi deceased Plaintiff has also sought 0 t relief of permanentinjunctioilrcstraining the defendantNos and 5 to 8 I from the suit properlyand restraining defendant No l from Z or makingany sort 01altcrationor modificationin the E from makinganykind of in the propertyD and Z 2 also from in tlle Ilil possessionof the plaintiffover the L property I The factsof thecase wlleil put in brief are thatplaintiffbeing 021 originalresident of villageClllarllllll PaltlDuggonTehsil Kharar and 1S e7 presently residingat Dubai thercflIre appointed his father4n4awJaswant Z Singhon 129988 as his gencralattclrneyJaswant Singhhas Oled thc suit on behalfofthe It has beenaverredin tllc j1laint that Puran Singhhad thrce sons namelyBaljit Singh olaintiffl Ilachan Siungh lefendant Nol1 BhupinderSinglieceasedland oile daughternamelyBachan Kaur alias Gurmit Kaur SmtDwarki lOevi was the wife of Puran Singh The plaintiffand defendant No alongwith above said persons were Hindus and therefore governedIIy Ilindu Law Defendant No43achan Singhseparated in the life time tIf his IlitherPuran Singh111the year 1976 Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 351 T RSA No3852 of 2008 3 W4 aftergetting a houseboundedas uiltlcr East Houseof BiInlaSingh West GurdwaraSallib North House of lliinla Singhand South House 01 Singh Household goodscash and ornaments and since then enjoyed this propertyin litIm other membersof the Joint Family 1 DefendantNol Bachan Singhiitlmilledhis from other members C 0 ofJoint Hindu Familyin his statenlentdated810979 Smt Bachan Kaur aliasGurmit Kaur had been marriedand lived in her matrimonialhouseat I villageDholewal Tehsil Samralaaild has died leavingbehinddefendant I Nos2 and 3 Puran SinghalongwIlh his lwo sons BaljitSinghoolaintifo Z BhupinderSingh aild Dwarki Devi oeingwife9 0 formed a Joint Hindu Falnilyand Puian Singhwas theKarta ofthe Family I PuranSinghhad threehousesand 011e raui fullydetailed in the headnote of c2j theplaintand one houseinentiollecliil para No3 ofplaintin which Bachan Singh defendantNo was Afler the death of Puran Singh Z plaintiffBaljitSinghwas in as owner of two housesand one Taur in dispute and at presenlis in ofone houseie properlyF It has further beenaverretl lhat Puran Singhand his two sons were masons and were working as Carllentcr and Blacksmith in thevillage Marauli Khurd and Gharuan and llicir iilcolne was pooledand formedJoint Hindu Familyfunds which run llllll Illousandsof rupees The suit land situatedin villageMarauli Khurd and iii villageGharuan was Ill 1978 in the name of BhupindeiSinglIdeceasedand Smt Dwarki Devi deceasedmember of Joint Hindu The land situated lll village Marauli Kalan was also acquiredIil Illc ilame of Smt Dwarki Dcvi Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 352 r l 1 RSA No3852 of 2008 4 1 deceased with the aid of Joinl l lindu Familyfundsand as such formed Joint Hindu FalnilyproperlyThe said were not for the sole benefitof BhupinderSinghand Smlwarki Devivdeceasedand the same were heldas trustees for the benelitof lnembersof the Joint Hindu Family 1 Smt Dwarki Devi deceasedwas 1111illiterate and unskilled housewife having no source of illlCOllle The taur ie propertyD andthe 0 0 houses ie propertyE and 12 WCltl also ancestral Joint Hindu Family C5 obtainedbyPuran Singllfronl hisfather One room in the house I 1eC E was construcled ollt 01Ihc fundsof Joint Hindu Familyof Z PuranSinghafler the of IlaclliinSinghdefendant lt has furtherbcen avciTedIllat Singh was murdered f at the handsof Bachan SinghdefefidantNo 1 on the nightof 7 and8 I 08 October 1979 who was issuelessand Icll Kaur defendantNoAl 4 as his widow who renunciated hcr intercst 111tlle Joint Hindu Family 3 Z held in thename SiiIghdeceasedthrough a consent Ll decreedated20Ol1981 relating to land situtitedin village lll favourofDwarki Devi a memberc1fJcliiitIIinduFamilyHatiinder Kaur also renunciatedher interestlll Joint I lindli 17ainily properties situatedat villageMarauli Khurd and got sanctiotlcd tllc mutation N03396 dated 29031982 in favourof Dwarki Devi dcccasedAfler renunciation shegot remarried lt has furtherbeen pleadedthiItIlachanSinghdefendantwas againstin Sessions Case N039 0 24 2 979 under Section 302134JPC for the murder of BhupinderSingllbut was acquitted of the charge sheetafler givingbenefitofdoubt Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 353 Ie RSA No3852 of 2008 5 Puran SinghKartil rIl Jtlint IIindu Familydied on 07 11 1982 Without any partition 111toIIcJoint Hindu Family Ill and without execul ingtIily Wl l1 in favour of Dwarki Devi ShrimatiDwarki Devi also died Oll 0207 1989 without affecting any of the said l indu Hindu loillily propertyltl and the plaintiffbeingthc sole surviving memberof the Joint 1 C14 D Iindu Familybecamethe exclusivc and ilhsoluteowner of the entireJoint 0 Hindu Familypropertyin question Z Takingundue of the rcvenueentriesin her name and of the flduciary the posilltIil ItlwardsplaintiffDwarki Devi sold the land 3 kanals 18 marlas situed at Z villageMaruali Khurd ie propertyB in favour of Piara Singhdefendant No vide saledeeddated 1509986 111cpliIintiff at that time was living I abroad and in the absence Iwiirki Devi deceasedactedas 021 the Managerand senIOr memberof Joinl llindu FamilyDwarki Devi a9 deceased was not the absoluteowner of any properlyor speciflcshareas a Z Qm result of partition tiIl her death in tlle JtIillt Ilindu Familypropertyitl question and as such was not coinpetent to scll tlle said 3 kanals 18 marlas of the suit land vide sale deed dated 15091 986 in favour of Piara Singh defendantNoMoreovershe had 110 Iegalnecessity to sell the said land The sale is also vitiatedbeingwithoutconsidenititiland beingnot for the benetltofthe Joint HinduI2amily and 1SIiableto hc sct asidebeingfalseand fabricated 10 Smt Dwarki Devi deceased was llol colllpetentto execute the WILL dated28031989 allegedbydefendailt 43tichail Siilghin his favour Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 354 r RSA No3852 of 2008 6 1 andas she had not becoineIllc tlllsoluteowner of any specificshareas a resultofpartition Moreover slle ivas not the owner of theTaur andhouse ln at all The Singhhad from his in the year 1976andhild ncver servedor lookedafterhis father and 1 Smt Dwarki Devi deceased l3ocilun Singhhad acute strainedrclations with Smt Dwarki Devi deceiIsedon account of murderof 0 0 singh who was livingwith Sml lOwarki Devi deceased Ilence 0 SmtDwarki Devi never execuled tiny WILL and the same is false fabricatedinvalid forgedunconsciollilbledocutnentand is sunoundedby Z highly circumstancesandis Iiable to be set aside Smt Dwarki Devi was livingwith the his familywho were looking afterher r I andwere serving her c 12 Plaintifffiled a civil suitNo1409dated133 1989 titledas Baljit Singh vs Bachan Singhand othersiil thc llllrt of SeniorSub JudgeRopar mm Z which was allowedto be withdrawnwith to institute a new sult Ll subject to costs of Rs51 vide orderdaletl 21 11 1990 and the saidcosts of Rs51 havebeen videRD No I 8 dated l 1991 On notice defendant Nos 1 ancl 5 Oled their joint written stateInent and raised illter alia that the suit is not inaintainableandthat the suit is time barred It has beenalleged thatBaUit Singhnever appointedhis fatherl4aw 118 his attorncyvide power of attomey dated 1 91 988 The plaintiffis csttlppcdby his own act and conductto file the presentsuit because lhe pltIintiffhad been admitting DwarkiDcvi to be the owner ofthe suit prollerly When theplaintiffle for Dubaiinthe year 1984 thereafter his wifeJasvirKaur alongwith children Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 355 I l RSA No3852 of 2008 7 U are livingin her parental house iit villageRangian and also she came to village Gharuanafterthe instilutionof llle presentsuit The ancestors ofthe plaintiff and defendant No l and so Illc Iolaintiff and defendantNo are from class and are hycustomaryIaw Puran Singhhad 1 inadea familyscttlementon 10121977 undhasgiventhetwo vacant sites todefendantNo 1 detailedthereofis as Iilllows 0 0 East Houseof Purall Rlllll CIC I West Vacantsite of Balltii Singh C5 North House of BantaSilIghPuran Singhetc and South Dharamshala I e andanotherpropertyowncdbyhiin and boundedas 2 East Rasta 2 West Vacant site of tlhuro Raln 0 North Gali Shareeamand South Houseof Bhura Ralll otj situatedin the area ofvillageGlltiruan wmo The abovesaidtwo vacant sitcs Iitid beengivenbyPuran Singh Z to defendantNo l and theancestralhouscplicca constructedone was given Il to and Puran Singhfatherof plaintiffand defendant Nol died in the year 1981 and has not from defendantNo 1 rathertheyhadbeeil livingtogether and it was only dcfendantNo who had beenworking andIlatlbcen earningPlaintiffwas marriedin the year l982 after the deathtll Pltrail SinghTlle wife ofthe plaintiffafter a periodof SlX nlonths could 11111pull Oll with the family therefore according to the fainily settlenlclll nlude by Puran Singh the ofancestral housewas givellto plainlill Owarka Devi had come andjoinedwith defendantNo l as Singhalreadydied in the year 1979 Defendant No I has not froill lhe familyas alleged by Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 356 U 1 RSA No3852 of 2008 8 1 tlle No I was thetlnlyearning hand andthereforeaRer themarriage ofplaintiffthedcfendiinlNoI alongwith his motherstartedto live in the house constructedby deleiltlant No l which was a khola 1 It has been furtherailcged tlIiilDwarkiDevi duringher lifetime lr soldthe Iand in favourof Piara Singllond earlierto that shehad 0 r thesaine with Piara Singhand even llle been Dwarki C5 Devi to be the owner ofthe landin disputelOefendantNo has ea I tlle propertywith considerationand is o l1tlnafide purchaser of the same Singhieceasedl thc propertybyhis own incomeand thc propertywas self acquiredpropcrly 01 said Singhand inheritedfroln him by Dwarki Devi and slic was cotnpetentto execute a 08 Willclated 283 1989 and she executedthe Stlllle with her free consent 111 favourofdefendantNo1 The plaintiffhild lllc ofthe saidWill 7 Z and has admittedthe same beforeAsststiinl Collector lst Grade and also flled an through his counsel Thc Illaintiff was not havinggood relationswith Dwarki Devi and he aild Ilis v never servedDwarkiDevi andratherthe litigation with lOlilarkiDevi in her life time DefendantNo has also filed counter claim for making the partition ofthe housewhich 1S In ofllIe 17 as defendantNo had g0t112 share 111the said Ilouse and theplaintiffhas given thc wrong boundariesthereofand the propertyis boundedas under East Rasta Share am r West Houseof BantaSingh North Huse ofCharanSinglland South Houseof Amar Singh 1 Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 357 Pe tr l0 Tz RSA No852 of 2008 9 l In theaforesaid prtIpcrtydefendantNol is in and hasconstructedone room also in thc said propertyand the plaintiffhasgot only1 shareand thispropcrtyis subject to the partition Puran Ram son of KirpaRam madea familysettlcmenl011 1021977 as detailedabove Aftcr 1 the cleathof BhupinderSinghIlis slIare uponDwarki Devi therefore she becamethc owncr of 8 share in the ancestral house in 0 C of the plaintiffis havingY sharein thesaidhouse C5 Denying other averments defendanlNo I prayedfor dismissalofthe suit I DefendantNos2 and 3 Ill tllcir written statement averredthat 4 Z defendantNol Bachan SinghusedIitlItve since his fatherPuran r Singh was alive and thereforehe was ntlt 11memberof Joint Hindu Family Bachan Singhfell in bad societyand harillycarned and thereforePuran I 08 Singhwas compclledto separateBacllan Siilghsoon after his marriage Denying other averments theyprayed lor dismissalofthe suit 3 Z In replicationplaintiOreitcratcllIllc claim of the plaintand ll controvertedthat of thewritten stateinent Following issueswere amcd 1 WhetherPuran Singhalongwilll his two sons BaljitSingh Singhand Stnt Dwarki Devi formedJoint Hindu Familyas aileged in ParaNoA0ofthe plaint20PP 2 Whether BachanSinghdefcndanthad from the familyin the year1976 as allegcdIll para No ofthe plaint2 OPP 3 Whether tbe suit Iandsituatedin vlliageMarauli Khurdand Marauli Kalan and Gharuanwas in 1978 out of Joint Hindu Familyfund as allegcdin para No6 ofthe plaint 20PP 4 WhetherthepIaintiffis entitlledlo sliecced to the suit Iandon the deathof SmtlOwarki Devi beinjlsole survivingmember of the jointfamilyas alleged lll IoartiNo10 of the plaint e Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 358 0 RSA No3852 of 2008 10 OPP 5e Whethersale deedtliltcd1591986 is illegalnull andvoid as alleged in Para No12 of the plaintand SmtDwarkiDevi wasnot competent to sell Illesame 2OPP 6 Whether SmtlOwarkiIOevi was not competentto execute any WILL as allegediil PariINl13 ofthe plaint20PP 7 Whether Sint Dwarki Devi executed valid WILL dated 28 1989 andcancelletlp1riousWILL dated2831984 If P so its effect90P10 r 0 8 Whether defendanl NosfI ItI B are in illegal of C the suit Iand20PP I 9 WhetherBaljitSinghhasnol JaswantSingh as his vide deeddated129 I988 20PD 10Whetherthesuit is not mainlaiilallle90PD Z 11Whether suit is barredbytiinc 21141 12Whetherplaintiffis stoppcdhy his act and conduct to file L2f C thepresentsuit 20PP 13Whether defendantNo hasany righttitle or interest in c8 housementionedin paraNo F of the Ileading of the plaintand his counter claim in this regardis mailllaiilable20PD vm 134A Whether the plaintiffis enlilled Itl Ihe ofthe Z suit property2OPP Llm 14 Relief Both the parties have Ied their rcspective evidence on the aforesaidissues After perusalof the evidenceand heoring the Iearnedcounsel for thepartiesthe Ieamedtrial Court partlydecrecdtlle suif ofthe plaintiff and decreedateddated312005 Feelingdissatisfied with the judgmelllilnd decree dated 32005 the preferred appealbellIrc theFirst Appellate Court The said appealwas heard and dismissed hy Ms IlarpreetKaur Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 359 r hT RSA No3852 of 2008 ll RandhawaAdditionalDistrictJudgeRupnagor Feelingdissatisfiedwith the and decree dated 232008 by Ms HarpreetKaur Rtlndhawa Additional District JudgeRupnagar hovc the presentregular secondappeal r 1 have heard learned counsel ftlr llle parties and have gone 0 C through the recordsofthe case with their hclp 0 di4 I C5 The learned counsel for the apjocl Iiillt has submitted I paraNo8 of the grounds of appealfollowingsullslatltial of law Z havearisenfor l 2 aI WhethertheCourtsbelow Ilovccrrcd on factsand in law 1 in not a clear iind admission I 08 by the his Iltiving from the jointfamilyas per his OWll slltlwing which fact 1S o Z agalll provedbythe of witnessesexaininedby Qa the hiinsclf as I1Wlnd DH7 6bl Whether the SUlt Iands lly the joint family funds in the name of a particular melllbcrof the family would exclusivelybelongto SUCIIIllClllber only or it would be a jointfamilyproperty lll the name of a meinber of the fatnily wlluld exclusively belongto such inember only Or tt Hltluld be a joint familypropertywith the rightslitle tltld inlerest therein lIl thc other meinbers who activelyctlntributed ln acquiring such property2 Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 360 r D RSA No3852 of 2008 12 1 c l Whetherthe Will datcd283 11189allegedly executedby Dwarki Devi is shrouded iIl numerous suspictous whicll fhe Ccltirls bclow have not referred to and consideredldiscussed andIllusinaterialdocuments t and vital evidence have lleell ignoredresultingin ofjustice 9 0 C dl Whetherthe Courts below IlIlvceiltertainedthe Counter C5 claim of Nol illcgtIllyand ignoringthe I proper containedin tlle tPC for the filingof Z counter claimsand have thus cIImillilledgrave illegality Ill thisbehalf 2 r e e l Whetherthe Courts below Ilaveignored the evidenceled 05 bythe parties and have rathertreatedinto tlle realmof and surillises and thtis the V Z are erroneous andperversc11 Il The flrst atlack of the Ieamedcounselloi llle 1S in respect of the that Bachan SinghdefendantWtlS from thejointfamilyin theyear 1979and was givena separiiteproperty Bachan Slnghwhile as his own witness has admilled that there was of the Joint Hindu familyPropertySo thc lllldiilgof both the Courtsbeloware contraryto the admission lnadebyBachaIi Singhand 1S liable to be ignored Darlbara SinglOW21 and Pritam SinglOM have also admitted the fact that Bachan Singhwas lrom the familySo hehas no rightto inherit thesuit property Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 361 J Y RSA No3852 of 2008 13 I have carefully consideredthc soid subinissionbut do not find anyforce111thatsubmission Thereis concurrent findingof fiIct recordedbyboththe Courts below that plaintiffhas failed to prove that llacllan Singllwas 1 from thejointHindu familyOtherwiscalso thc said aspectof the case 11C loosesits as both the Courtsbcllllv Ilove givena concurrent 0 0 flndingoffact thatplaintiffhas failed to provctllal propellies mentionedin I C5 theheading ofthe plaintisjointHindu fainilycopiirccnaryproperty I Lcarned counsel for the has furthersubmittedthat Z mentionedat Sr No A to C was itl lohename of Dwarki or BhupinderSinghout of thejointfamilyfunds Both the Courts below 0 havecommittedeiror in the fact that a in the I 08 name of all the lncmbers of thejointHindu familyOlll of thejointHindu funds ls a coparcenary So the Icariledtrial Court has 7 Z wrongly heldthatpropertymentionedat Sr No A l3 and C is theproperty of Dwarki and thatpropertymentionedat Sr No l to l ltl tlle heading of the held byPuran Singh I havecareilly consideredthe saidsubmissitIllbut do not find anyforcein that submission There is concurrent findingof fact recordcdby hoth the Courts below that the plaintiffhas failed to prove that any of the propertyis the joint Hindu familycoparcenary property The Ieainecl triol Court has tJ3b observed thatthereis distinctionhaving a jointIvlindufaInilythan t the propertyheld byjointHindu faInilypropertyTherc illay bc a joint 1Iindufamilybut the propertycan be said to be coparcenarytlnlyif the saine Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 362 r RSA N 3852 of 2008 14 is anccstralor out ofthe ilucleus IllointHindu familypropeny Leamedcounsel for the could not poilllout that there was any nucleusto the propertyout of tlle und of jointHindu family propert 1 The other attack of the Iearnedcolinselfor the 1S ln C respect of Will dated 2831989 executedbyIOwiirkin favour of defendant 0 C Bachan Singhand Iearnedcounsel for the hassublniuedthat the I C5 said Will in favour of Bachan SinghIS surroundedby SUSplClOUS circumstances The thumb ilnpression on the WiIl is blurred Therewas Z no for the Will in favtllir 11f 13achanSinghto the 2 exclusionof the plaintiff The earlier Will of 11184was in favour of the 0 Cr plaintiff as well as BachanSinghThere IS Illl evidenceon the Ole that I 08 misbehavedwith hisfatherPuriin Sitlgh So therecitalmade 00 lll the Will tllat Will of 1989is wrong on the ace 01 it as the a Z goneto theDubai Ll 1have carefully consideredthe said sulltnissionbut do not flnd anyforce in thatsubmission There is concurrent findingof fact rccordedby both the Courts bcllowthat Will executed by Dwarki in favour tll I3achanSinghstands provedbeyondshadowof doubt That beinga CllllClllTCllt findingof fact cannot be interferred The case of the plaintiflhiillself is that he went abroad So therewas no occasloll for Dwarki Dcvi Io cllange the Will in favour of Bachan Singh who had been scrvingher duringher life tlmeUma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 363 r RSA N 3852 of 2008 Iearned counsel for the appellailt hiis Iiiither attacked the of both the Courts below on the grolilltlllllat counterclaim of No l have been 11legallyenterlainecl he Coutt below should not have cntertained counter claim by the No1 BachanSingh 1 have carefully consideredthc said sulmission but do not Ond m 1 anyforce in that submission 0 Learned counselfor theappellant ctItild tltIt show as to how the counterclailn was not maintainable I The Iastattackmadebythe cllunsel Ior Ihc is to the effect that both the Courts below have ignoredtlle evidenceled by the Z 2 parties andhavedecided the case on 0i141surmisesand in these circumstanceshave returnedtheperverseOndings I I have carefulIyconsideredthe said slilliilission but do not flnd 021 anyforcein thatsubmission mmn The trial Court has cacll ond every Z evidence as well as oral evidence Thc First Appcllate Court has re the evidence There lS nothing Oll the Ille that and decrees of both the Courts below are the reslill of and the evidenceon the Ole No pointcdattcntionof mine has beendrawn thatwhich ofthe evidencehasbeen ignorcdbyboth the Courts below There is nothing on the tile to show Illat iidgments of both the Courts below are basedon and surillises So it cannot be said thatthejudginents of both the Courts below arc jlervcrsc Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 364 r 1 RSA No3852 of 2008 16 In view ofthe abovediscussion011the substantial of law raised above bythe Iearnedcounscl Ioi the appel lant standanswered against the the appealis without any merit and the same standsdismissed A copy of this be scnt 10 the trial Court for strict 1 0 0 1 JUDGE I 914 2010 Sv I 1 Z 2 I 021 mm Z P Ol1 1V eIi lC 1 A0 el 69v4 r1 8 10 Io Uma 2012.11.19 13: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document