IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 122 RSA-1968-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026 Labh Singh and Another …..Appellants Vs. Sita Ram (deceased) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants–defendants N: 2 & 3 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 22.02.2024, whereby the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment 22.12.2017, while partly decreeing the suit of the plain1ffs, have been affirmed. 2. The plain1ffs had ins1tuted the suit seeking decree for recovery of possession and declara1on to the effect that the gi5 deed dated 16.09.2013 executed by Ram Diya in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 (appellants herein) is illegal, null and void being the result of fraud and misrepresenta1on, and consequen1al relief of permanent injunc1on. The principal controversy revolved around the validity of the said gi5 deed and the mental capacity of the executant, Ram Diya. 3. The learned Trial Court, upon apprecia1on of oral as well as documentary evidence, returned a categorical finding that Ram Diya was a person of unsound mind and was not competent to execute the gi5 deed. Consequently, the gi5 deed was declared null and void. These findings NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1968-2024 (O&M) came to be affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court a5er re- apprecia1on of the en1re evidence on record. 4. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that both the Courts below have misread the evidence, and that the gi5 deed was validly executed by a person of sound mind. It is further argued that the medical cer1ficate relied upon by the plain1ffs is unreliable and has been wrongly accepted. 5. Before adver1ng to the merits, it is trite that the jurisdic1on of this Court under Sec1on 100 CPC is confined to substan1al ques1ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless it is demonstrated that such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a patent misreading of material evidence. 6. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that Ram Diya was suffering from severe mental disability. This conclusion is primarily based upon the medical cer1ficate issued in 2004 by a duly cons1tuted medical board and the tes1mony of the Psychiatrist (PW3), who proved that Ram Dia had an IQ below 50 and was about 75% mentally disabled, incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of his acts. 7. Not only this, even the witnesses examined by the defendants admiBed in cross-examina1on that Ram Diya was not in a sound mental condi1on in the years preceding his death. 8. In the face of such overwhelming evidence, the finding that the executant lacked the mental capacity to execute a valid gi5 deed is a pure finding of fact based on proper apprecia1on of evidence. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out in the said finding. 9. It is well seBled that for a valid execu1on of a gi5 deed, the donor must possess sound disposing mind and understand the nature of the transac1on. Where such capacity is absent, the document is void in the Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1968-2024 (O&M) eyes of law. The Courts below have rightly applied this seBled principle. 10. It is found that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court are concurrent in nature and are based upon medical evidence duly proved on record; oral tes1mony of expert witness; admissions elicited from defence witnesses; and overall circumstances surrounding the transac1on. No material evidence has been shown to have been ignored, nor has any inadmissible evidence been relied upon. The conclusions drawn are reasonable and plausible. 11. The en1re controversy sought to be raised by the appellants pertains to re-apprecia1on of evidence regarding mental capacity and validity of the gi5 deed. Such an exercise is impermissible in second appeal. 12. No substan1al ques1on of law, much less a debatable or arguable one, arises for considera1on. The appeal is, thus, an aBempt to reopen concluded findings of fact, which cannot be permiBed. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdic1onal error in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The same are based on proper apprecia1on of evidence and correct applica1on of law. 14. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applica1on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 09, 2026 Nee1ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document