RSA No. 1745 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1745 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.5.2011. Siri Kant .......Appellant Vs. Parshotam Singh and another ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 12.11.1998 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 qua the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that defendant No.1 was the real brother of plaintiff No.1 and cousin brother of plaintiff No.2. The suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Plaintiff No.1 had 1/4th share in the suit property, whereas plaintiff No.2 had ½ share in the suit property and defendant No.1 had 1/4th share in the suit property. Defendant No.1 had sold the entire property to defendant No. 2 vide sale deed dated 12.11.1998. The sale of the suit property qua the share of the plaintiffs was bad in law and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs RSA No. 1745 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit property was not ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Rather, the suit property was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayer for in head note of plaint? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether suit of plaintiff is not legally maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether defendants are entitled to compensatory costs? OPD 6. Whether defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser of the suit property? OPD 7. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 15.9.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff No.1 preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed by the Additional District Judge, Adhoc, Fast Track Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2007 and it was held as under:- “As a result of the above discussion the appeal of the appellant Siri Kant only succeeds about his 1/4 share RSA No. 1745 of 2008 (O&M) -3- and claim of the plaintiff No.2 Chandar Shekhara failed which is found rightly dismissed. But ¼ share of the plaintiff Siri Kant can be got partitioned according to law and the sale deed Ex. P-1 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent no.2 will be considered as sale deed of his ¾ share accordingly with this modification appeal is partly allowed with no orders as to cost. File of the appellate be consigned to the record room and that of the trial court be returned. ” Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The appellate court has decreed the suit qua the present appellant to the extent of his 1/4th share. In these circumstances, the present appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2007. Plaintiff No.2 had not filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The suit qua the claim of plaintiff No.2 was dismissed by the first appellate court. The suit qua the plaintiff No.1 was decreed by the first appellate court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was entitled to inherit the share of plaintiff No.2 as the said plaintiff had died. However, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out as to how the appellant would inherit the share of Chandar Shekhar, who is his cousin brother. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. RSA No. 1745 of 2008 (O&M) -4- Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 31, 2011 Gurpreet