- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.
(2.) THIS is defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiff-respondent over the property in dispute. The Original Suit No. 125 of 1985 was filed by the plaintiff- respondent with the allegation that the property in dispute was owned by Smt. Kishan Dei, who executed a will dated 2-9-1970 in her favour. Smt. Kishan Dei died in 1971 and since thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent was in possession and occupation of the house in dispute. The defendants were illegally threatening to oust the plaintiff- respondent from the said property. Hence, the suit. The suit was contested by the appellants- defendants pleading that the property in dispute was inherited by Smt. Hardei d/o Smt. Kishan Dei who, by means of a sale-deed dated 20- 12-1985, transferred the same in favour of the defendants. Since then, they were in possession over the same. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The trial Court, after going through the evidence on the record, recorded clear and categorical findings that the will in question was duly executed in favour of Smt. Hardei and the execution of the same was proved in accordance with law, that the plaintiff- respondent was the owner in possession of the property in dispute. Other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff- respondent and the suit was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 13-1-1987. Challenging the validity of the said decree, Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1987 was filed by the appellants. The appellate Court has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court on all relevant issues and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 26-7- 2000. Hence, the present second appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the will in question was not proved in accordance with law. The Courts below have acted illegally in relying upon the said will and holding that the same was duly executed and its execution was duly proved, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellants and also perused the record. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the question involved in the case, which are based on the relevant evidence on the record. It could not be shown by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the execution of Will was not proved, therefore, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, to the contrary, cannot be accepted. Findings recorded by the two Courts below are all findings of fact, which are based on relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid judgment and decrees passed by the Court below.;