RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 23.7.2008
Zile Singh and other ...Appellants
VERSUS
Gulab Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for respondent no. 1
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
When the matter was being taken up for hearing. Mr. Surinder
Dhull, Advocate has intervened and requested the court that the
present RSA may be adjourned and be heard alongwith CR No.4927
of 2007. He has also referred to the order dated 29.11.2007 passed in
the aforesaid Revision which reads as under:-
“On behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that RSA
No.3657 of 2002 is pending in this Court and is
listed on regular Board of Hon’ble Mr.Justice
V.K.Sharma, at Sr.No.831.
In the facts and circumstances, this petition be put
up before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for sending to
RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :2:that Court”.
In the aforesaid order, the file was required to be placed before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. No such order has
been brought to my notice that the revision petition has been directed
to be heard alongwith the present RSA. Apart from the above, learned
counsel, however, states that he is not engaged in the present RSA.
Learned counsel has further stated that another CR No.4512 of 2001
is also required to be heard alongwith the present RSA. No relevancy
has been shown in the order passed in the aforesaid revision to be
heard alongwith this RSA. Under these circumstances, I decline his
prayer for hearing the said revision with the present RSA and the
present RSA is being taken up for final hearing.
Appellants herein are defendants no.1 and 3 in the suit filed by
the plaintiffs, respondents no.1 to 14 herein. Plaintiffs-respondents
instituted a suit seeking a decree for possession of 22 acres of land
described in the plaint claiming to be the sister’s sons and daughters of
Darab Singh, the owner of the land in question. The plaintiffs claim
that they are the nearest heirs of the deceased Darab Singh. While
giving the pedegree, it has been mentioned that one Kundan had a
son- Darab Singh and a daughter Bhulli. Darab Singh was issueless
as his wife pre-deceased him. Bhulli survived by Sunhari, Hukam
Singh and Ajmer Singh i.e. two sons and a daughter. Plaintiffs no.1 to
8 and defendants no.22 and 23 are the sons and daughters of Sunhari
whereas Hukam Singh is plaintiff no.9 and plaintiffs no.10 to 14
and defendants no.22 to 27 are successors-in-interest of Ajmer
Singh, on the basis of their relationship as the collaterals of Darab
RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :3:
Singh who died in 1972. The deceased had left the suit property
situated at village Kasor. They also alleged that the defendants are not
permitting the plaintiffs and defendants no.22 to 27 to possess the
suit land. On being put to notice, only defendants no.1 and 3
contested the suit whereas some of the defendants were proceeded
ex-parte and some died and given up. The defendants claim that they
are the owners in possession of the suit land, on the basis of Mutation
No.855 sanctioned by the Collector, Kaithal in their favour on
7.2.1994. They also claimed to be the legatees of the deceased Darab
Singh and entitled to the land in question. On the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:-
“1.Whether the plaintiffs are heirs of Darab Singh
as alleged? OPP
2.If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiffs are
entitled to possession of the suit land as alleged?
OPP
3.Whether Darab Singh executed any will in favour
of defendants no.1 and 3? OPD3.
4.Whether defendants no.1 and 3 are in possession
of the suit land being legatees of Darab Singh?
OPD3
5.Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing
the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD
6.Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD
7.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file
the present suit? OPD
RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :4:
8.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
9.Relief.”
Issues no.1 and 3 were taken up together for consideration by
the trial court. It is also relevant to mention that the defendants also
denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Darab
Singh. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Plaintiffs
examined Hukam Singh as PW1, Isham Singh as PW2 and Yaspal
Chand Jain, handwriting expert as PW3. Isham Singh, PW2 who also
belonged to the Village Kasor proved that the plaintiffs are the sister’s
sons and daughters of Darab Singh and their successors. On the basis
of the aforesaid evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that
the plaintiffs have established their relationship with deceased Darab
Singh. Even the defendants also admitted in their cross-examination
the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased Darab Singh. The
defendants during the course of evidence, relied upon a will dated
6.12.1971, Ex.D1. The handwriting expert compared the signatures of
Darab Singh on the Consolidation Scheme of the area prepared
somewhere 40 years back and opined that the signatures on the will
do not tally with the signatures of Darab Singh, on the consolidation
scheme. Though the defendants produced the marginal witnesses to
the will, however, on the basis of the evidence of the expert witness,
the trial court returned a finding that the defendants have failed to
establish the due execution of the will and the will is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs
came to be decreed for possession vide judgment and decree dated
RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :5:
31.1.2000. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the
present appellants alone preferred an appeal before the Additional
District Judge, Kaithal. The lower appellate court vide its detailed
judgment and decree dated 4.8.2000 dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the findings of fact recorded by the trial court.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken me to
the evidence relied upon by the courts below. His contention is that
both the courts have wrongly relied upon the consolidation scheme to
compare the signatures of Darab Singh with the signatures on the will.
According to the learned counsel, it has not been established with
certainty that the signatures on the consolidation scheme were of
Darab Singh. However, both the courts have categorically held that
Darab Singh was resident of village Kasor and there is no other
person with the name of Darab Singh in the said village and he being
the landlord put his signatures on the consolidation scheme. It is not
in dispute that Darab Singh was a big landlord and he was definitely
interested in the preparation of the consolidation scheme. There is
evidence on record that except this Darab Singh, there was no other
person with the same name in the said village. Apart from that the
defendants have not led any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the
plaintiffs. It is settled proposition of law that even if two views are
possible from the appreciation of evidence and the view taken by the
courts below is one of the possible view, no interference is warranted
in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. There is
concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. No
substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which
RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :6:
is accordingly dismissed.
(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE
23.7.2008
MFK
RSA NO.3657 OF 2000 :7: