IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 RSA-5199-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.07.2025 OM PARAKSH DECEASED THROUGH LR ROSHAN LAL KAURA LR …..APPELLANT Vs. GOPAL MOHAN KAURA AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Plainff (now appellant through one of his LRs) is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for declaraon and permanent injuncon filed by original plainff-Om Parkash Kaura was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.02.2017 and the appeal filed by one of his LRs Roshal Lal Kaura, was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 20.11.2018, affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, learned counsel contends that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. 3. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel and has appraised the paper-book. 4. According to plainff, he is the owner of the property in dispute. He is an old person aged more than 80 years, suffering from mulple diseases, having 05 sons and 01 daughter and that one of his sons Roshan Lal Kaura is running a flour mill in two of the shops forming part of the suit property for the last 10 years as tenant under him (plainff). Plainff came to know about the alleged gi9 deed dated 24.12.2008, when defendants Gopal PRIYANKA 2025.07.15 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5199-2019 (O&M) Mohan Kaura and Sunil Kumar Kaura (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) started proclaiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property. Roshan Lal Kaura had also filed an injuncon suit against the plainff-Om Parkash Kaura and defendants-respondents of the present case, when defendants of this case had threatened to dispossess him from the shops. 5. Defendants refuted the stand of plainff and claimed to be owners of the suit property by virtue of registered gi9 deed dated 24.12.2008. Earlier, plainff had executed a Will dated 01.04.2008 regarding the disputed property and other properes, but on account of strained relaons with Roshal Lal Kaura, plainff himself had executed the gi9 deed in favour of the defendants. Defendants accordingly pleaded for dismissal of the suit. 6. A9er taking evidence produced by the pares, learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings. 7. As noced by the First Appellate Court, plainff himself has referred about the previous ligaon, which was iniated by one of his sons Roshal Lal Kaura seeking permanent injuncon against the plainff of the present case i.e. Om Parkash Kaura and other sons of said plainff. Learned First Appellate Court has referred to the wri@en statement, which was filed by Om Parkash Kaura i.e. plainff of the present case in that earlier ligaon. That wri@en statement was produced on record as Ex.D5, wherein plainff himself had candidly admi@ed that though he was owner of the property in dispute, but had transferred the same to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 of the previous suit (defendants of the present case) by virtue of a gi9 deed dated 24.12.2008 and ever since then, those defendants were owner in possession of the suit property, on which they were running a flour mill under the name & style of ‘Gopal Flour Mill’. 8. Learned First Appellate Court rightly observed that the aforesaid admission made by the plainff in the previous ligaon, completely PRIYANKA 2025.07.15 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5199-2019 (O&M) sha@ered this case. There is nothing on record to show that the admission made by the plainff in the previous ligaon was ever withdrawn by him. 9. Not only above, the impugned gi9 deed dated 24.12.2008 Ex.D1 is a registered document, which is proved on record not only by the tesmony of one of the defendants Gopal Mohan Kaura, but further by the statement of one of the a@esng witnesses namely Dharamveer Kaura. Plainff u@erly failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that the said gi9 deed was the result of any fraud or misrepresentaon. No evidence was produced that at the me of execung the said gi9 deed, plainff was not in proper physical and/or mental state of health. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of the fact as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon the proper appreciaon of the evidence on record. No merits. Dismissed. 10.07.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No PRIYANKA 2025.07.15 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document