R.S.A No. 540 of 1987 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 540 of 1987 Date of decision : October 22, 2009 Harnam Singh and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Bachittar Singh (dead) through L.Rs and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 (since deceased represented through L.Rs) for declaration that the consent decree dated 26.11.1980 suffered by his father in favour of his other brothers/nephews is illegal since the property was co-parcenary and ancestral, and his father could not suffer the decree. Originally, this appeal, along with connected appeals, was referred to the Full Bench of this Court to determine the question, whether the concept of co-parcenary property applied to Jats of Punjab and Haryana, R.S.A No. 540 of 1987 ::2:: or whether they continued to be governed by custom. The Full Bench has now decided the controversy and it has been held that after coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, coparcenary property applies to Jats and they are not governed by custom. After deciding this question of law, the Full Bench has returned the appeals to be decided on other questions raised therein. Since this appeal was filed as far back as in 1997, no question of law was proposed. Even today, counsel for the appellants has not proposed or argued any question of law. His argument is that under the impugned decree, the plaintiff had also obtained some land but in his suit he had not included that land. However, I find that both the Courts below have considered this fact and have come to the conclusion that the said land situated in village Bajpur was never a part of co-parcenary property and had been purchased by the plaintiff himself. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. Another argument raised by counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff being out of possession could not maintain a suit simpliciter for declaration. In my opinion, since the case of the plaintiff was that he was a co-sharer in the property and that has been accepted by the Courts below it cannot be said that a suit for joint possession does not lie. Of-course, the respondents would now have to file a suit for possession if they want possession of any piece of particular land. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. R.S.A No. 540 of 1987 ::3:: As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 22, 2009. JUDGE `kk'