OM PARKASH Vs. UMED SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by plaintiff No.2-Om Parkash. He along with other plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and in the alternative for joint possession. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that one Ramji Lal was unmarried and had died issueless on March 4, 1974. The plaintiffs claimed that they along with Harparkash, father of defendants No.7 to 10, used to serve the aforesaid Ramji Lal and in lieu of the services a registered Will dated February 25,1970 was executed by Ramji Lal. However, Sultan Singh, father of defendants No.1 to 6 and husband of defendant No.11 got a mutation of inheritance of Ramji Lal in his favour. It was thus claimed that the aforesaid mutation date February 22, 1976, was illegal, wrong and liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs further claimed that Sultan Singh died and on his death, a mutation was sanction in favour of defendants No.1 to 6 and 11 on May 25, 1984. Defendant No.11 also died and a mutation regarding her inheritance was sanctioned on December 22, 1988. The plaintiffs thus maintained that all the mutations in favour of defendants No.1 to 6 and 11 were illegal and were liable to be set aside and were not binding upon the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 6 and 11. They pleaded that there was no will ever executed by Ramji Lal in favour of the plaintiffs or Harparkash. The aforesaid defendants maintained that they being the legal heirs of Ramji Lal, a mutation of inheritance had been rightly sanctioned in their favour.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants took up the matter in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence. On such reappraisal, the learned first Appellate Court, found that PW6 Shiv Narain, who was the sole surviving witness of the aforesaid Will, had made an earlier statement Ex.P4 before the revenue authorities, in which he had specifically stated that no such Will was ever executed by Ramji Lal. Although, during the course of statement before the trial Court, the aforesaid Shiv Narain had stated that the Will was so executed, but keeping in view the divergence in the earlier statement Ex.P4 and the statement made in Court, the first Appellate Court rejected the testimony of PW6 Shiv Narain. Consequently, it was held that the Will was not shown to be executed by Ramji Lal. Additionally, the learned first Appellate Court noticed that the claim of the plaintiffs for mutation on the basis of the aforesaid Will had been rejected by the revenue authorities in the year 1976. The suit in question had been fled by the plaintiffs on August 27, 1993. In these circumstances, it was also held that the suit was barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(3.) Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.