RSA No. 1983 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1983 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 28-01-2009 Narender Singh and another ....Appellants VERSUS Saroj and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 28.11.2007 and the First Appellate Court dated 20.5.2008. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bhim Singh was the owner of the property. He had four sons. The plaintiffs-respondents are widow and minor daughters of Devender Singh one of the sons of Bhim Singh, who was survived by three brothers and two sisters. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs-respondents that they were owners in possession of 1/12th share of the agricutural land measuring 60 bighas 16 biswas belonging to Bhim Singh which came to them from a family settlement arrived at between Bhim Singh and his sons in the year 1990. On the basis of this settlement, the land and its title were transferred and the possession had come to the plaintiffs-respondents. Devender Singh died subsequent to the family settlement. On 10.4.2000 a release deed was executed. Bhim Singh allegedly transferred the land in dispute in favour of the present appellants. RSA No. 1983 of 2008(O&M) 2 The plaintiffs-respondents pleaded that they have become owner in possession of the suit land and Bhim Singh has got no right to transfer it further to the appellants. A decree for declaration was accordingly sought to the effect that release deed dated 10th April, 2000 executed by Bhim Singh in favour of the appellants be declared null and voild and consequently revenue entries entered on the basis of the same be also declared null and void. Further a declaration was sought that they were owners in possession of the suit property i.e. 1/12th share of the total land. A relief for permanent injunction was also prayed for. The appellants filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they were owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of release deed executed by Bhim Singh and possession of the plaintiffs-respondents were denied and it was denied that they were owners in possession of the suit land. Parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the release deed dated 10.4.2000 in favour of the defendants no.1 to 3 and subsequent mutation no.4145 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owner and in possession to the extent of 1/12th share in the disputed property? OPP. 3. If above mentioned two issues are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? RSA No. 1983 of 2008(O&M) 3 OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD. 7. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under section 35-A of CPC? OPD. 8. Relief. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents and the findings were upheld by the First Appellate Court. In Regular Second Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the family settlement was not proved and it was never entered into the revenue entries as per law. It was next contended that reliance was placed by the Courts below on the settlement entered into before the police authorities and that compromise has not been proved. Reliance was placed on AIR 1971 (SC) 1865 titled as 'Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others versus Yelamarti Satyam and others' to contend that mere marking of the document is not enough, it has to be proved in accordance with law. It was then contended that land was not ancestral as it has not been proved by any evidence on record and even though one of the defendants while appearing in the witness box had admitted the land to be ancestral in the hands of Bhim Singh yet mere admission regarding the nature of the property cannot be a substituted proof of the land being ancestral which has to be established by way of independent evidence. Reliance was placed on case titled as 'Matu Ram (deceased) through L.Rs versus Kartar Singh and others' 2004(2) PLR 569. No one put in appearance for the respondents despite the fact that the case has been called out twice during the course of the day. RSA No. 1983 of 2008(O&M) 4 After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal does not warrant any interference. The clincher in this case is the testimony of PW2 who admitted in his cross-examination that some of the land had fallen to the share of Devender Singh which was being cultivated by the plaintiffs-respondents. He also admitted that he was present when the compromise mark 'A' was executed between the parties and admitted his signatures on the compromise deed. In this view of the matter, two of the aspects conclusively stood settled; (a) the factum of the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents (b) execution of the compromise. In the wake of the categoric admission by the appellant Umed Singh himself, no further proof was required regarding the compromise. He himself has admitted the same and his signatures thereon. Accordingly, in terms of the compromise, the land had devolved upon Devender Singh. In so far as the property being ancestral is concerned, DW3 Rajender did not deny that the land had devolved upon Devender Singh after the death of his father Bhim Singh. In the compromise, it was categorically agreed to give 1/4th share which was the legitimate share of Devender Singh to be given to him. In this view of the matter, when there are specific admissions by the appellants themselves regarding the property being inherited by Bhim Singh from his father, the compromise being executed, the possession being delivered to the plaintiffs-respondents being the share of Devender Singh, their brother, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous or perverse. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not relevant for the reason of the RSA No. 1983 of 2008(O&M) 5 admission of the appellants themselves. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. January 28 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge