R.S.A.No.405 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.405 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.3.2011 Harphool ......Appellant Versus Ram Phal .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Saneta, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction qua house No.282/6 Mark as ABCD in the site plan and house No.231/6 marked by letters EFGHIJ in the site plan. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Lehri and Nathu were owners of the property in dispute. Lehri had died unmarried and issueless. Nathu had two daughters namely Parsani and Ratni. Plaintiff was son of Parsani. Ratni became widow after R.S.A.No.405 of 2009 (O&M) 2 her marriage and had died issuelss on 10.6.2000. The property in dispute was mortgaged by Nathu and Lehri with Mansa Jat for a consideration of ` 800/-. The property was got redeemed by Nathu during his life time in the year 1956. However, Lehri had been unable to pay the redemption money. Due to this reason both Nathu and Lehri executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.7.1956. Since then, the plaintiff had become owner in possession of the suit property. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against Ratni and Ram Phal wherein defendant alleged that Ratni had executed a Will dated 18.11.1998 in his favour. The alleged Will was not a genuine document. In December, 2001 defendant had forcibly occupied the suit property. Defendant in his written statement denied that Lehri and Nathu were owners in possession of the suit property. Rather it was alleged that Nathu was the sole owner in possession of the suit property and Ratni was his only daughter. Lehri had no concern with the suit property. It was also denied that the plaintiff was son of Parsani and the suit property had ever been mortgaged by Nathu and Lehri with Mansa Jat. The execution of alleged gift deed by Nathu and Lehri in favour of the plaintiff was also denied . It was averred that the gift deed was a bogus and sham transaction. Ratni had executed a Will dated 18.11.1998 in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the suit property was earlier owned and possessed by Nathu and Lehri? OPP. R.S.A.No.405 of 2009 (O&M) 3 2. Whether the suit property was gifted by said Nathu and Lehri to the plaintiff through gift deed dated 20.7.1956? OPP 3. Whether the Will dated 18.11.1998 executed by Ratni in favour of defendant No.1 is forged, shame, bogus, illegal, null and void and creates no right in favour of defendant ? OPP 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff had concealed true and material facts from the court ? OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred U/O 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 9. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 9.1.2008 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had based his claim on the gift deed Ex.P-8 R.S.A.No.405 of 2009 (O&M) 4 executed in his favour by Nathu and Lehri on 20.7.1956. In order to succeed, the plaintiff was required to establish that Nathu and Lehri were, in fact, owners of the suit property and were capable of executing the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that it was not proved on record that Nathu and Lehri were owners of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to successfully challenge the said finding. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 17, 2011 anita