R.S.A.No. 1894 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1894 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2011 Lakhwinder Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Surjit Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were co-owners to the extent of half share in the suit land. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007. In appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2010. Hence, the R.S.A.No. 1894 of 2010 (O&M) 2 present appeal by the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Naranjan Singh was the owner of the property in dispute. Plaintiff No.1 was married to Avinash Singh son of Naranjan Singh and they were blessed with three daughters. Defendant Naranjan Singh was karta of the family and the suit property was ancestral in his hands. The defendant, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs, suffered a collusive decree in favour of his grand sons. The said decree was illegal, null and void. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit property was self acquired property in the hands of Naranjan Singh. Plaintiffs had no concern with the said property. During the pendency of the suit property, defendant- Naranjan Singh died and his son Pardeep Singh was brought on record as his legal representative. However, Pardeep Singh also died during the pendency of the suit and his widow and sons were brought on record as his legal representatives. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.5.1995 in civil suit No.344 of 1994 titled as Charan Preet Singh and others vs. Naranjan Singh is illegal, null and void and inoperative and is not binding upon the plaintiffs? OPP. R.S.A.No. 1894 of 2010 (O&M) 3 2. If issue No.1, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs not maintainable? OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC ? OPD 5. Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under the principles of resjudicata? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct ? OPD 7. Whether suit of the plaintiff is within limitation ? OPD 8. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, Naranjan Singh was owner of the property in dispute. The plaintiffs had failed to establish that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of Naranjan Singh. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, have given a finding of fact that the suit property was not ancestral property in the hands of Naranjan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants has been unable to successfully challenge the said finding of fact. A suit was filed by Charan Preet Singh and Sukh Preet Singh against Naranjan Singh alleging therein that in a family R.S.A.No. 1894 of 2010 (O&M) 4 settlement they have been given the suit property. The suit filed by them was decreed in their favour on the basis of admission made by Naranjan Singh. In these circumstances, the said decree was not liable to be registered. Thus, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 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 February 04, 2011 anita