IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 208 of 2008. Date of decision: 20.8.2009 Sh.Jai Singh. …. Appellant Versus Sh.Narpat Ram and ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant: Shri G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Karsog in Civil Suit No.23 of 2003. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Narpat Ram and Prem Singh filed a suit against one Smt.Kalawati and the present appellant Jai Singh in the Trial Court challenging the gift deed dated 10.1.2003 executed by Smt.Kalavati in favour of the present appellant in respect of that portion of the land which she 2 had already sold to the plaintiffs vide sale deed No.494 dated 23.10.1992. This suit was contested. The Trial Court after trial came to the conclusion that in fact, Kalawati had already sold some portion of the land, which is the subject matter of the gift deed, to the plaintiffs much prior to the execution of the gift deed. Obviously therefore, she did not have any right title or interest in that portion of the land. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in the following terms:- “Keeping in view the findings and reasons above, the suit of the plaintiffs stands decreed and gift deed No.19 dated 10.1.2003 executed by Kalavati in favour of Jai Singh is declared null and void to the extent of 610 shares which she has already sold to the plaintiffs and revenue entries showing the defendants Kalavati and Tarku in equal shares are illegal, null and void and required to be corrected.” Kalawati did not challenge this judgment and decree and only Jai Singh filed an appeal. This appeal has been disposed of by the impugned judgment. The learned Appellate Court upheld the findings of the learned Trial Court and came to the conclusion that since out of the entire share measuring 2-2-0 bighas Kalawati had already sold 1-10-10 bighas in favour of the plaintiffs vide sale deed executed on 23.10.1992, she could not 3 have executed the gift deed in respect of the entire land and, therefore, the gift deed dated 10.1.2003 was held to be null and void qua the land already sold to the plaintiffs. This is a pure finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below. After having gone through the record, I am satisfied that this finding of fact is absolutely correct and based on the documentary evidence on record, i.e., the sale deed and the gift deed. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. August 20, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge