-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 92 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 12, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 92 of 2011 (O&M). Hira Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Dharampal 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. B.R. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration against the defendants in respect of the property in dispute has been dismissed by both the Courts below. I have heard Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The suit filed by plaintiff-appellant Hira Singh was -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 92 of 2011 (O&M). contested by defendant-respondent Dharampal. Hira Singh (plaintiff) and Dharampal (defendant) are sons of Moti Ram (since deceased). As per case of the defendant-respondent, the suit property i.e 19 Kanals 08 Marlas and a residential house were the self acquired properties of Moti Ram. On the other hand, case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the said properties were ancestral properties at the hands of Moti Ram. Moti Ram had suffered a decree in the year 1986 in respect of the disputed land in favour of defendant-respondent Dharampal and also executed a registered Will in respect of the residential house in his (Dharampal's) favour. The plaintiff-appellant has claimed that the property in dispute was the joint Hindu family property and he (plaintiff) being one of the sons of Moti Ram (deceased) was having his share in the same. Both the Courts below have held that the property in dispute was the self acquired property of Moti Ram. Moti Ram had retired from the Army. Exhibit D.W.1/A, a copy of the sale deed No.201 dated 27.4.1956 shows that Moti Ram (deceased) had purchased the land in dispute measuring 19 Kanals 8 marlas. Similarly, Exhibits D.1 to D.4 i.e sale certificate dated 28.2.1958, cash receipt dated 30.11.1957, treasury challan dated 23.12.1957 and letter dated 13.12.1957 show that the residential house in dispute had also been purchased by Moti Ram (deceased). This residential house had been purchased by Moti Ram in an open auction of the Rehabilitation Department. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 92 of 2011 (O&M). The sale deed Exhibit D.W.1/A had been executed in the year 1956 whereas documents Exhibits D.1 to D.4 had been executed in the years 1957-58. The authenticity of these documents cannot be challenged and these are free from all suspicions. The evidence on record leads to the only conclusion that the property in dispute was the self acquired property of Moti Ram (deceased). This being so, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has rightly been dismissed by both the Courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by 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 ) January 12, 2011. JUDGE ak