R.S.A.No.2100 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2100 of 2009 Date of Decision : 14.09.2009 Inderjit Singh ...Appellant Versus Mohinder Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declartion and for joint possession filed by the legal heirs of Gurcharan Singh, pre-deceased son of Didar Singh against the other legal heirs of Didar Singh, was decreed. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that the land was owned and possessed by Udham Singh son of Arjan Singh. Didar Singh son of Udham Singh constituted a joint hindu family with his sons. Udham Singh inherited the property from his father Arjan Singh. It was averred that no property was ever acquired or purchased by Didar Singh. Didar Singh died leaving behind Mohinder Kaur-plaintiff No.1 and Jagmohan Kaur-plaintiff No.2, as wife and daughter of Gurcharan Singh, pre-deceased son of Didar Singh. The reference was made to an agreement to sell purportedly entered upon by Didar Singh and also Will allegedly executed by Didar Singh. It was pleaded that such documents do not affect the rights of the plaintiffs, who have a right in the ancestral R.S.A.No.2100 of 2009 2 property by birth in the hands of Didar Singh. In the written-statement, the stand of the defendants was that Didar Singh was absolute owner of the property and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the estate left by Didar Singh. Voluminous evidence was led by the parties before the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the property in dispute is not proved to be ancestral property. The plaintiffs have produced excerpt Ex.P-1 prepared by the Revenue Authorities and in respect of inheritance from Arjan Singh. The learned trial Court found that said excerpt does not prove that the property in the hands of Didar Singh was ancestral property. However, in appeal the findings have been reversed. It has been found that Didar Singh inherited property from his father Udham Singh and Udham Singh inherited property from his father Arjan Singh. The excerpt was found to contain 12 entries and all the entries goes to show that the property in dispute was earlier held by Arjan Singh and after his death, it came to Udham Singh and then to Didar Singh. The entries at Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 were considered and found that entry No.5 pertains to inheritance of Udham Singh in favour of Didar Singh and entry No.6 is of inheritance of Didar Singh and Dilbag Singh from their mother Ratti. Entry No.10 pertains to inheritance of Didar Singh from Udham Singh. It was found that the dispute in the present suit regarding estate of Didar Singh and not of Ratti. It was also found that no mutation or sale deed has been mentioned in excerpt, which may show that Didar Singh purchased any other property. Thus, it was found that the property in the hands of Didar Singh was not self-acquired property but was ancestral property, in which R.S.A.No.2100 of 2009 3 Gurcharan Singh has right by birth. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced excerpt Ex.P1 for the perusal of this Court. With his assistance, I have gone through the entires recorded therein. The inferences drawn by the learned first Appellate Court on the reading of the excerpt are correct. It could not be pointed out that any entry has been misread. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any revenue record in respect of purchase of land by Didar Singh or of land received by him in any other manner except by inheritance from Udham Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to dispute the findings of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court by reappreciation of evidence. Findings of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 14.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE