RSA No.2894 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2894 of 1987 Date of Decision: 25.3.2010 Mohinder Pal Singh ...Appellant Versus Dalbir Singh (died) through LRs .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes/No. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes/No. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes/No. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None the respondent. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Defendant-appellant is assailing judgment and decree dated 18.2.1985 passed by learned trial Court as well as judgment and decree dated 27.1.1987 passed by learned First Appellate Court thereby granting the decree of possession against the defendant- appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff had filed suit for possession alleging therein that Ajit Singh was owner of the property in dispute and Ajit Singh during his life time has permitted the defendant to occupy the portion of the accommodation as licensee. Plaintiff is the sole legal heir of Ajit Singh and has inherited the entire property on the death of Ajit Singh. 3. Defendant contested the suit alleging therein that Ajit Singh RSA No.2894 of 1987 2 during his life time had executed one Will in favour of the defendant on 8.7.1981 and defendant is the owner of the property in dispute, hence, plaintiff is not entitled to dispossess the defendant. 4. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that Will dated 8.7.1981 is not proved and no title is passed in favour of the defendant pursuant to the Will dated 8.7.1981- As to whether Will dated 8.7.1981 is a genuine document or not is a question fact? 5. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. Since both the courts below have recorded finding of fact against the defendant on the question of genuineness of the Will, in my opinion no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. 6. This appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 25.3.2010 sharmila