RSA No.118 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.118 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.9.2009 Kundal Lal and another ......Appellants Versus Satish Kumar and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Arun Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendants No.1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration challenging the decree dated 25.7.1996 suffered by Manohar Lal in favour of the present appellants, was decreed. It has been found that the property in the hands of Manohar Lal was a joint Hindu family coparcenary property in which the plaintiffs have a right by birth and, therefore, Manohar Lal could not suffer decree in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. Finding of fact recorded by the Courts below regarding the RSA No.118 of 2009 (O&M) (2) property being joint Hindu family coparcenary proeprty, is sought to be disputed by way of re-appreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 11-09-2009 ds