R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007
Date of decision : September 01, 2009
Krishan and others,
...... Appellant (s)
v.
Smt. Sushila and others,
...... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 5.
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned
lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing
the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 4 for declaration that they were
co-owners of the land in dispute and in joint possession with the appellants.
The learned lower appellate Court on a conspectus of the entire
evidence found that respondents No.1 to 4 were in fact the widow and
children of deceased-Prabhu. The case of the appellants on the other hand
was that Prabhu had died unmarried and issueless.
R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 ::2::
The following questions have been proposed :-
” i) Whether the reversal of findings of the trial Court
by the first appellate Court is a clear misreading of
evidence ?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs have discharged their onus
to prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Prabhu?
iii) Whether the evidence produced by the plaintiffs is
sufficient to prove the identity of the plaintiffs ?
iv) Whether the plaintiffs have produced sufficient
evidence to prove that Shanti was legally married wife of
deceased Prabhu ?
v) Whether the findings of complete ouster recorded
by the trial Court have been wrongly upset by the first
appellate Court by misreading of evidence ?
vi) Whether the findings recorded by the first
appellate Court on the question of limitation is not
legally sustainable ?
vii) Whether oral evidence of PW Manbhawati who
herself suffered a decree in favour of Suraj Bhan, is
liable to be discarded ?”
It would be seen that questions No.(i) to (v) and (vii) are pure
questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the
findings and the evidence recorded on these questions by the learned lower
appellate Court. I, however, regret my inability to agree with the
contentions that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are
based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse.
R.S.A No. 1310 of 2007 ::3::
With regard to question No. (vi), the same is a question of law. I find that
this question has actually been decided by the learned appellate Court by
holding that respondents No.1 to 4 had filed a suit on the basis of title and,
thus, was within limitation.
Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the
appellants, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending
civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) September 01, 2009. JUDGE `kk'