UDHAM KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel, both the courts below have misread the documentary evidence which was on the record. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land since 1969, when her husband died. He further submitted that the eviction proceedings against Pritam Singh and Piara Singh cannot affect the right of the appellant as she was not impleaded as party in the aforesaid proceedings. Furthermore, the rapat roznamcha dated 7.3.1980 which has been considered by the trial Court does not mention that the possession was taken from the plaintiff. He further submitted that the entries had in fact been corrected in the year 1988-89. I am of the considered opinion that both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact, after due appreciation of the evidence. Merely because this Court would come to a different conclusion on the same evidence, would not amount to a substantial question of law. This Court would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. This view of mine finds support from the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2920 : 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 625 (SC). In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observes as under:-