R.S.A.No. 2874 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2874 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Tarlok Singh ......Appellant Versus Satwant Kaur .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Tarlok Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Ambala City vide judgment and decree dated 8.3.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 18.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint, aare R.S.A.No. 2874 of 2009 (O&M) 2 that defendant and one Kulwant Kaur are daughters of late Sh.Mansa Singh who is the father of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is the only son of late Sh. Mansa Singh. Sh. Mansa Singh had inherited some property from his forefathers and purchased the suit property from the earning and sale of the property. The suit property being ancestral in nature the Will dated 28.6.1990 executed by Sh.Mansa Singh is null and void. Hence, this suit. 3. The stand of the defendant as per the written statement is that the suit property is the self acquired property of Sh.Mansa Singh who executed a valid Will dated 29.6.1990 qua the same in favour of the defendant and which will also got registered.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration on the grounds taken in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is time barred? OPD R.S.A.No. 2874 of 2009 (O&M) 3 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected in non-compliance of Order 7 Rule 1 (J) CPC? OPD 7. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. In the present case, the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. The plaintiff appeared in the witness box and tendered his affidavit in his examination-in-chief but thereafter, he did not appear for cross-examination. PW-2 Daljit Kaur, wife of the plaintiff appeared in the witness box and deposed as per the contents of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff was that he be declared owner of the suit property as it was ancestral in nature. However, the plaintiff failed to lead any documentary evidence in support of his case. The plaintiff also pleaded that the Will dated 28.6.1990 executed in favour of the defendant by Mansa Singh was null and void. The defendant, on the other hand, has proved on record Will Ex.D-1, Ex.D-2, extract of register of document writer and Ex.D-3 vide which mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant, after it was contested by the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the order, whereby mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant was dismissed vide order Ex.D-5. The suit filed by father of the plaintiff Mansa Singh against the plaintiff, challenging gift deed, which defendant was alleged to have got fraudulently R.S.A.No. 2874 of 2009 (O&M) 4 executed, was decreed vide Ex.D-16. The said decree was upheld up to this Court vide judgment Ex.D-20. Plaintiff also filed a suit for injunction against his father and defendant, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree Ex.D-8 and D-9 respectively. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment Ex.D-10. The plaintiff filed another suit against the defendant and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order Ex.D-13. In these circumstances, since the plaintiff had failed to establish his case, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned District Judge has rightly imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the plaintiff as he had been dragging the defendant in litigation after litigation. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 06, 2009 anita