9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h share of 7/30 share of Jit Singh in the land detailed in the heading of the plaint. It was alleged that Harnam Singh was the father of the parties and that he died prior to 1956 leaving behind five sons and two daughters out of which the plaintiffs and the defendants were alive and that after the death of Harnam Singh, the property was inherited by his five sons out of whom Ajaib Singh died issueless and his 1/5th share was inherited by his remaining four brothers and two sisters in equal shares. It was alleged that Jit Singh (another brother) also died intestate and his share in the suit property was to devolve upon the plaintiffs and defendants in equal shares. However, defendant No. 1 Sarup Singh got mutation in respect of the share of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgments, of the Courts below, are perfectly in accordance with law and no case for interference by this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal is made out, especially when the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant could not point out any illegality in the judgments of the Courts below, nor could point out anything from the record to show that there is any misreading of evidence or that any material evidence has not been considered by the Courts below. So far as the adoption of Balbir Singh plaintiff by Tara Singh is concerned, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff-appellant Balbir Singh himself was the signatory to the adoption deed Exhibit DW3/A and that in the present suit Balbir Singh plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to Tara Singh and that Ram Singh, another brother of Jit Singh, had also inherited the property of Tara Singh by way of Will whereas the sisters of Jit Singh were already married whereas another brother, namely, Ajaib Singh had already expired. In my opinion, these findings given by the learned Additional District Judge, regarding adoption and Will are in accordance with law and no fault could be found with the same. The authorities 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 421 (S.C.); Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, 1977 P.L.J. 54 (SC); Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur, (1995-3)111 Punjab Law Reporter 177; Babru son of Chet Ram v. Basakha Singh and Ors. and (2001-3)129 Punjab Law Reporter 755; Ram Jiwan v. Heera Lal, relied upon by the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
