(1.) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff questioning the impugned judgment and decree by which the first appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit.
(2.) Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. The suit property being held by Amar Singh and the plaintiff being the grand-son of Amar Singh (being one of the daughter's son) is entitled for 1/12 th share in the suit property. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the finding which is perverse to the record and which involves substantial question of law for determination. Mr. Bajaj relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court to buttress his submission: -
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and went through the record with utmost circumspection.