-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4578 of 2009 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 09, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4578 of 2009 (O&M). Raj Kumar alias Pali ... Appellant VERSUS Siri Ram and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1986 passed in Civil Case No.5 of 1986 by the Court of Miss Neena Chaudhary, the then Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal, in case titled Mohan Lal Versus Lahna Singh was null and void and did not confer any title or interest upon the defendants and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4578 of 2009 (O&M). by both the Courts below. I have heard Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. Plaintiff-appellant Raj Kumar, in the instant suit, claimed that the land measuring 7 Kanals 16 Marlas (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property') representing half share of the land measuring 15 Kanals 12 Marlas, detailed in paraNo.1 of the plaint, was the joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff-appellant, his father Lehna Singh (defendant-respondent No.3) and his mother; that the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff from his forefathers; that Lehna Singh, father of the plaintiff, who was `Karta' of the joint Hindu family, did not manage the suit land properly; that Lehna Singh had always been indulging in drinking and womanizing; and that defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2, taking undue advantage of the said bad habits of Lehna Singh, procured the consent decree dated 12.11.1086 in their favour in Civil Case No.5 of 1986 in case titled Mohan Lal Versus Lahna Singh, mentioned above. Lehna Singh once appeared before the trial Court in person, but later on he did not turn up and vide order dated 10.3.1999 was proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court. Defendants-respondent Nos.1 and 2, in their written statement, inter alia, pleaded that they along with Anil son of Mohan Lal (defendant-respondent No.2) were in possession of the suit land and that the plaintiff-appellant or defendant-respondent No.3 had no concern with the same; that defendant No.3 was the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4578 of 2009 (O&M). sole owner of the suit land and, therefore, he was competent to suffer the decree in question; and that subsequently the mutation in respect of the suit land had been sanctioned in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Anil aforesaid. The plaintiff, in order to prove that the suit land was ancestral at the hands of his father Lehna Singh (defendant- respondent No.3) relied upon Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 (Exhibit P.1) and mutation No.3395 (Exhibit P.2). However, both these documents do not reveal that the suit land was inherited by Lehna Singh (defendant No.3), father of the plaintiff, from his father Ram Saran and he (Ram Saran) had inherited the same from his father Harjas. Thus, the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim that the suit land was ancestral at the hands of his father Lehna Singh and, therefore, he could not suffer a consent decree in respect thereof, was not cogent and convincing. As such, there was no impediment for Lehna Singh (defendant No.3) to suffer a consent decree in respect of the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Regarding another claim of the plaintiff that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had maneuvered to obtain decree from defendant No.3 as he (defendant No.3) was a drunkard and womanizer, as mentioned above, defendant No.3 did not file any written statement and had been proceeded against ex parte by the trial Court and it was only he (defendant No.3) who could tell as to whether any fraud had been played by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 upon defendant No.3. Thus, it is not established on record that any fraud had been -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 4578 of 2009 (O&M). played by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 upon defendant No.3. Besides, as admitted by plaintiff Raj Kumar alias Pali (P.W.1), defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into possession of the suit property in the year 1987-88 on the basis of decree suffered by Lehna Singh in their favour. The revenue record produced on record by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 also proves that they were in possession of the suit property since long. It is thus clear that at the time when the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the suit property, but strangely enough the plaintiff did not seek the relief of possession. The suit of the plaintiff, under the circumstances, fails on all grounds i.e on the ground that the suit property was ancestral at the hands of Lehna Singh (defendant No.3), that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had played fraud upon Lehna Singh in getting a consent decree from his (Lehna Singh) in their favour and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not in possession of the suit land. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 09, 2011. JUDGE ak