JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership to the extent of 34/105 share, out of the property shown in his plaint, he also claimed joint possession, with a further prayer that the respondents be restrained from interfering in his possession. His suit was dismissed. He also failed in appeal.
(2.) To claim ownership, reliance has been placed by the appellant upon a Will, allegedly executed by his grandfather, in his favour. Appellate Court below has noticed a fact that when said Will was executed, the deceased has two unmarried daughters, widow and other children. In the said Will, there was no mention regarding them and furthermore attesting witness, who has come to, state regarding the Will, was none other than father of the appellant. It has also come on record that he was introduced as a third witness, and in view of that the Court below has discarded his statement. It has also been noticed by the Courts below that there exist many discrepancies so far as writing of the Will is concerned. Names of some persons have been mentioned in typing whereas names of others have been mentioned by hand.
(3.) This Court feels that no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact, given in para Nos.18 and 19 of judgment under challenge. No substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed on merits. There is no necessity to pass order in C.M. No.635-C of 2004.;